An FIR cannot be sustained when its allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the necessary ingredients for the charged offenses, and investigation lacks evidence of a prima facie case of negligence or disobedience of public orders.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this application, applicant is seeking quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.245/2020 registered under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

3. A crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 that he is working as a Medical Officer in the Ambulance Service having emergency medical service No.108 for past two years. Due to Pandemic Covid-19, he was required to attend and to receive the patient affected by the said Covid-19. On 04/07/2020, the Medical Superintendent Dr. Shyam Tombre called the complainant on his phone and informed immediately to approach the police station to take the help of police official to intercept Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar i.e. present applicant and to bring him at Covid Care Centre, Mehekar. It is further alleged that on 04/07/2020, he reached the hospital/clinic of the present applicant with the help of the police authority. He requested to the applicant to accompany him, but there was no response from the family members of the present applicant. With the help of megaphone, an announcement was made to the applicant to co-operate. At that time, he received information that the applicant has already reached the Covid-19 Centre. Therefore, he again reached the Covid-19 Centre and thereafter he lodged the report. On the basis of said report, the police have registered a crime against the present applicant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the recitals of the FIR itself show that after some time, present

applicant has approached to the Covid-19 Centre. Admittedly, he was not found either in the hospital or in the house when the non applicant No.2 visited his house or the hospital.

5. There is no allegation that due to his living in the Covid-19 Centre, anybody was affected as he was found Covid positive patient. Thus, he submitted that no offence either is made out under Sections 188, 269 or 270 of the IPC and therefore, as no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant, application deserves to be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that considering the applicant was specifically intimated to remain present at Covid-19 Centre but he has not appeared there and there was a possibility of infection to the others due to free movement of the present applicant and thus, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, as there is disobedience of the order duly promulgated by the pubic servant. Thus, there is an offence committed by the present applicant under Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC also. In view of that, application deserves to be rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 endorsed the said contention.

8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers which are produced before me for perusal, it reveals that the present applicant was in Home Quarantine Centre and he was asked to appear at the Centre. Admittedly, notice issued to the present applicant shows that he was asked to appear in the said Quarantine Centre, but he subsequently appeared at 1.15 p.m. Thus, it is not the case that he did not turn up to the Quarantine Centre. In fact, the statement of various witnesses which are recorded. All the statements show that subsequently, he reported to the said Quarantine Centre. Thus, as far as the offenc