Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Urmila Joshi-Phalake, J
Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts leading to the registration of an fir for alleged non-compliance during the pandemic. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting arguments regarding the validity of the fir based on the applicant's compliance with quarantine instructions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's legal reasoning for quashing the fir, determining that ingredients of the charged offenses were absent. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
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 immediat
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
