IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution under IPC Sections 269 and 270 requires credible evidence of infection, which was not present in this case.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

1. By the instant application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. applicants are challenging the summoning order dated 15.10.2020 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 600 of 2020 (State Vs. Vinay Sikarwal and Others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal whereby applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 269 and 270 IPC.

2. As per the FIR, on 03.05.2020, the police intercepted three cars and signalled them to stop. The applicants were sitting in three cars. There were other persons also in those cars. The FIR records that all the occupants of the cars had no mask. Only 9 persons were permitted to travel, but there were three more persons in excess, in the cars. The FIR also records that it was against the guidelines of COVID-19 pandemic, as it could have further spread the disease. The FIR further reveals that the applicants, at the relevant time, were going with Mr. Aman Mani Tripathi, who was Member of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh, and he had taken permission for attending post death rituals of the father of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Perusal of the record reveals that in this matter, after investigation, Charge-sheet No. 514 of 2020 was submitted under Sections 188, 269, 270 and Sections 2 and 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, but the court, on 15.10.2020, had taken cognizance only under Sections 269 and 270 IPC.

3. By way of present C482 application proceedings of the case are put to challenge. The record further reveals that on 15.10.2020, the court had also taken cognizance against one Jay Prakash Tiwari in the case. Jay Prakash Tiwari had filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 1823 of 2022. The application was allowed by the Court on 14.11.2022. In Para Nos. 14 and 15 of the order dated 14.11.2022, passed in C482 No. 1823 of 2022, the Court has observed as follows:

“14. In that eventuality, and the aspect which has been dealt with by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matters of Sidak Singh Sandhu (Supra) because when no action was taken by the authorities as against the conduct or an act of the negligence against whom the offence under section 269 of IPC, is attempted to be drawn, the act of prosecution under section 269 of IPC and 270 of IPC, of the person without there being a credible material before the authorities would be bad in the eyes of law. As per the case at hand admittedly when the vehicle was being apprehended, or even thereafter ever there was no test conducted and there was no determination made by the authorities that any of the passengers which were being carried were infected by the Covid19 virus, and as such, section 269 of IPC, would not be made out against the present applicant.

15. As a consequence thereto, and for the reasons assigned above, the C482 Application is allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 600 of 2020, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vinay Sikarwal and Others, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, would hereby stand quashed qua the present applicant only.”

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the cognizance was taken in the case on 15.10.2020 against many persons. Jay Prakash Tiwari and Aman Mani Tripathi had filed their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which had already been allowed. He would further submit that the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court in C482 No. 1823 of 2022 and learned State Counsel has not disputed this fact.

5. In that application, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has relied on the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sidak Singh Sandhu Vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Another.

6. The c