The prosecution must prove each element of the charged offences; mere possession of medication during a public health crisis is not sufficient for liability under IPC or related statutes.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet at Crime No. 356/2021, registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore under sections 188 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 read with section 3 of EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT , 1897 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1897 Act’) and section 24 of M.P. Rajya Ayurvigyan Adhiniyam, 1987.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was lodged on 17-4-2021, against one Nilesh Chauhan by the complainant Inspector Amrita Solanki on the ground that she has come to know that certain persons are black marketing the Remdesivir injections by creating a fake need, and pursuant thereto one person is about to come to sell the Remdesivir injection for Rs. 22,000/- at Choithram Square, and when she got to Choithram Square, she apprehended Nilesh Chauhan, who was found in possession of one Remdesiver injection. According to Nilesh Chauhan, he was selling the fake Remdesiver injection by filling them with distilled water. During the course of investigation, one Kavita Chauhan was also arrested, and she, in her memo prepared under section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT , has stated that she is working as a nurse, and had purchased three Remdesiver injections, out of which, she had given one injection to Nilesh Chauhan to sell it to some needy person on higher price, and another injection she had given to Bhupendra and his brother Shubham, the present petitioners, and thereafter, the present petitioners were also arrested and from their possession, one Remdesiver injection was recovered.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the injection recovered at the instance of the present petitioners is the injection which they had purchased for the treatment of their parents and the wife of petitioner No. 1, through a medical store, the invoice of which is also placed on record. It is submitted that the same injection has been seized from the petitioners, and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Counsel has also submitted that even assuming the story of the prosecution to be true, no case under sections 188 or 420 of IPC is made out as it is nobody’s case that the petitioners had duped anybody or that they parted with the same for any consideration. Counsel has also submitted that there is no disobedience on the part of the petitioners in respect of any order passed by the Collector. Thus, section 188 of IPC is also not attracted and similarly, section 3 of the EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT , which is similar to section 188 of IPC, is not made out. So far as section 24 of M.P. Rajya Ayurvigyan Adhiniyam, 1987 is concerned, it provides for penalty for practicing as registered medical practitioner, not applicable to the petitioners. Thus, it is submitted that none of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences are present in the charge-sheet, and the further continuation of the case against the petitioners will only be a misuse of the process of Court. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR be quashed.

4. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the documents relied upon by the petitioners filed along with this petition, which do not find place in the charge-sheet, cannot be relied upon. It is also submitted that recovery of one Remdesiver injection from the petitioners is sufficient to dislodge their claim.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Before this Court proceeds to dwell upon the facts of the case, it would be worth to refer to the provisions under which the petitioners have been charged:

“1. Section 188 of IPC:

“188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public s