Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurbir Singh, J.
Gurnam Singh Bhullar - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-24034 of 2022
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Section 188 - Violation of Covid-19 Regulations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 - Section 188 of the Code, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 - The court discussed the specific bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for initiating proceedings under Section 188 of the Code, the mandatory nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C., and the requirement of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned. It highlighted the violation of legal provisions and the abuse of the process of law in registering the FIR and conducting proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR and final report registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The case involved allegations of gathering without permission and non-compliance with Covid-19 regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registration of the FIR and the proceedings taken therein against the petitioner were impermissible under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It concluded that the registration of the FIR was an abuse of the process of law.
Issues: The issues involved the violation of Covid-19 regulations, the mandatory nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C., and the requirement of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned for initiating proceedings under Section 188 of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the specific bar to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Code without a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned. It held that the registration of the FIR and the proceedings were impermissible and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR against the petitioner was quashed, along with all proceedings taken therein.
GURBIR SINGH, J.
1. Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.88 dated 11.07.2020 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala, under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as ‘Code’), Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 as well as final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P2).
2. The case in hand was registered at the instance of ASI Rajinder Singh, Police Post Jansua on the allegations that on 11.07.2020 he along with other police officials was present at the Bus Stand, village Jansua in connection with patrolling duty. At about 05.30 pm, a secret information was imparted that at Prime Mall, Singer Gurnam Bhullar along with his 40 companions without any permission of the Government, without any mask on the face of any person had gathered and was doing the shooting of some film. It was against the law due to prevalence of Covid-19 pandemic. If raid was conducted at Prime Mall, then Singer Gurnam Bhullar along with his companions could be apprehended. Since the information was reliable and trustworthy, so ASI sent a ruqa to the police station for registration of case against Singer Gurnam Bhullar and owners of the Prime Mall namely Satish Ahuja, Ashwin and other companions of Gurnam Bhullar, Video Director Khushpal Singh, on the basis of which case in question was registered.
3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan under Section 188 of the Code and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 was presented in the Court under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is being prosecuted for offence under Section 188 of the Code but no challan under Section 188 of the Code could have been presented by the investigating officer in view of the specific bar under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 does not prescribe any specific punishment but any person on disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act is liable to be punished under Section 188 of the Code. The offence under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is a non cognizable offence for which lodging of the FIR and investigation by the police at its own is not permissible. Even police recommended that petitioner be declared innocent. Superintendent of Police, Patiala came to the conclusion that petitioner was innocent and recommended to file discharge application before the Court (Annexure P3) which was further recommended by Senior Superintendent also. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 268, P.K. Lakhani and another vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 838, authorities of Hon’ble Apex Court, Jiwan Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 415, Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 481, Jagdish and others vs. State of Haryana, Law Finder Doc Id # 714018 and Vasid @ Basid vs. State of Haryana and another, Law Finder Doc Id # 1912284, authorities of Hon’ble High Court.
5. The learned State counsel has submitted that outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and its prevalence was an extra ordinary situation. The gathering of the people was totally banned. No activity could took place without permission of the concerned District Magistrate and that permission could only be given for doing such activities which were urgent and subject to observing directions for preventing Covid-19 Pandemic as issued by the Government of Punjab as well as Union of India. The said directions were issued to prevent the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. In the case in hand, there was a gathering without permission, without observing the instructions issued by the Government, so registration of FIR and filing of the challan is in accordance with the law.
6. I hav
The mandatory nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the requirement of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned for initiating proceedings under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of aforesaid legal analysis, it is quite vivid that respondent/State is absolutely unjustified in registering first information report for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of Act of 1897....
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 Emb....
The court emphasized the need for a simpler procedure in dealing with petty offences and criticized the delay in disposing of cases related to violation of orders under the Disaster Management Act, 2....
The registration of FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant is impermissible and renders the proceedings void ab initio.
Cognizance of offences under the Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act requires specific allegations and compliance with procedural requirements, which were absent in this case.
Cognizance of offences under the Disaster Management Act and IPC requires specific complaints and allegations that meet essential legal criteria; failure to comply renders the prosecution invalid.
Cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint by a public servant; FIRs based solely on police reports are prohibited and rendered void.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
