IMPORTANT POINT
The court's inherent power under section 482 CrPC requires cautious examination and should not be exercised to scuttle proceedings or short circuit the trial based on allegations in the FIR.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that an FIR dated 16.09.2020 was lodged before the Officer-In- Charge, Kharkutta Police Station, North Garo Hills by the Sr. Medical & Health Officer, Kharkutta PHC who is arrayed as the respondent No. 3 herein.

2. Mr. Gautam has also submitted that the contents of the said FIR is such that the petitioner herein was accused of violation of COVID-19 protocol and has particularly met the Block Programme Manager (BPM), Shri B.D. Sangma and had told him that the doctor in charge of Kharkutta PHC is operating against the guidelines of COVID-19 protocol which is a harassment to the general public for which very soon the doctor will be beaten by the public. The petitioner was also accused of instigating general public and bringing passengers from Shillong while telling them that they are no longer required to be quarantined. For the act of spreading unverified and false information and for endangering the life and safety of the said informant and the general public, the police was requested to investigate into the matter.

3. On the basis of the said FIR, the police have registered a case being being Kharkutta PS Case No. 08(09)2020 u/s 188/269/270/506 IPC r/w section 3(2)(i) of the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the accusations made in the said FIR, had accordingly approached this Court with this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 16.09.2020 and the criminal proceedings arising out of it in Kharkutta PS Case No. 08(09)2020 u/s 188/269/270/506 IPC r/w section 3(2)(i) of the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.

5. Before proceeding to argue on the merits of this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the Investigating Officer (I/O) has filed the charge sheet which was forwarded to the competent court and the matter is now seizin by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, North Garo Hills. However, even though the charge sheet has been filed, this petition is still valid inasmuch as the grievance of the petition can still be addressed by this Court, it is further submitted.

6. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been no instance where the petitioner has violated any of the COVID-19 protocol and as far as inter-district movement of persons within the State is concerned, the attention of this Court is drawn to the public notice dated 25.08.2020 being No.POL.75/2020/Pt.I/60 issued by the Chief Secretary of the State, to say that there is no restriction on the said inter-district movement within the State. The petitioner, being a driver of a tourist taxi ferrying passengers from Shillong to Garo Hills and other places, therefore, it cannot be said that he has violated the COVID-19 protocols.

7. Again, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no ingredient of section 506 IPC, where the petitioner is accused of criminal intimidation for which he is to be penalized accordingly since, there is no evidence that he has ever intimidated the complainant/respondent No. 3 and even if assuming but not admitting that he had used the words 'very soon doctor will be beaten by public', the same cannot be construed as an act of criminal intimidation.

8. For the reasons stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this petition may be allowed since the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court and a travesty of justice since no offence has been made out against the petitioner on the basis of the said FIR.

9. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP. in rebuttal has submitted that the petitioner was found to have violated COVID-19 protocol and as such the respondent No. 3 was compelled to lodge the FIR in this regard.

10. The learned Addl. PP has also cited instances where t