The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with legal provisions, the requirement for evidence to support charges, and the need for proper service through the Embassy of the concerned country as stipulated under Section 105 d (ii) of Cr.P.C.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.0068 dated 16.06.2020 under Section 188, 269, 270. of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including order dated 11.07.2022 vide which the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed person have been initiated.

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the FIR are that when police officials were on a patrolling duty on 16.06.2020 they saw two young men coming without wearing the mask on a motorcycle bearing registration Number PB-57-C-0449. When police officials stopped and asked their names and addresses, they told their names as Gurpreet Singh alias Preet (Driver) and Parminder Singh alias Tinku (present petitioner) as pillion rider. As both young men have allegedly violated the instructions related to Covid-19 pandemic, an FIR was registered against them under Sections 188, 269, 270 IPC 1860.

3. Explaining the brief background of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and his co-accused were stopped by the police officials and were asked about their names and even after telling them the reason that they had come out to bring medicines for their sister, who was suffering from and was undergoing treatment for Tuberculosis and even a prescription was shown to the police, the police did not pay any heed and dragged them to the police station and registered the present FIR at the back of the petitioner. He also submits that respondent has setup a false story in the form of the impugned FIR and it is being specifically denied that the petitioner and his co-accused were not wearing the masks. In fact, both of them were wearing the masks and it was only at the asking of the police officials that they took out their masks to tell them about their addresses. After, their names and details were noted down; they were arrested and were taken to the Police Station, where no tests were conducted to find out whether the petitioner and his co-accused were actually likely to spread any infection/ Covid. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case under Section 188 IPC was made out against the petitioner and no procedure as envisaged under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was followed while registering the impugned FIR against the petitioner and petitioner did not disobey any order duly promulgated by the State. She further submits that neither any test was conducted upon the petitioner; nor was he suffering from the Corona Virus at that time, thus, in the absence of any such evidence, the offences under Sections 269 and 270 of IPC also cannot be attracted. With respect to PO orders, learned counsel submits that unknown by the fact that the impugned FIR was registered, the petitioner left for Portugal, i.e. his place of work on 19.07.2020 where he has been working for past 2 years. Even in impugned order dated 11.07.2022, it was noted that arrest warrants of accused/ petitioner received back with the report that he has gone abroad, however, despite that proclamation proceedings u/s 82 of Cr.P.C were initiated without making any effort to serve the petitioner through concerned Embassy. In support of her submissions, she places reliance upon the judgment in "Dr. Apurva Ghiya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh" reported as 2021 Crl. LJ 890, "Zubair P.K. Vs. The State", CRR No. 6 of 2021 decided on 08.09.2021 (Single Bench of Calcutta High Court) & "Pawan Giri & Others v. State of Haryana" CRM-M-51595-2021 decided by Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 07.02.2022.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that by not wearing mask and by roaming on the streets in violation of Covid guidelines, the petitioner along with other co-accused has violated the orders promulgated in this regard and therefore, FIR has been rightly registere