Knowledge of the order and actual risk to public health are essential for proceeding under Section 188 IPC.

ORDER

% 29.10.2025

1. The Petitioner, aged 35 years and an Advocate of this Court, seeks quashing of FIR No. 0150/2020, [“impugned FIR”] dated 20^th April, 2020, registered under Sections 188/269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“IPC”] at P.S. Vasant Kunj (South-West District). A complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973³ was subsequently filed by the ACP, Dwarka. The Trial Court took cognizance of the same and issued summons to the Petitioner. By order dated 1^st April, 2025, the Trial Court framed notice under Section 251 of CrPC only for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, and dropped proceedings under Section 269 of IPC in view of the absence of CRL.M.C. 7597/2025 Page 1 of 4 any material indicating that the Petitioner was COVID-positive.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20^th April, 2020, the Petitioner was found standing outside his residence without a mask during the pandemic lockdown, whereupon he was taken to the police station, and the impugned FIR was registered. The prosecution alleges that this conduct violated the order dated 15^th April, 2020 issued under Section 144 of CrPC, mandating the wearing of face coverings in public places.

3. Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the impugned FIR lacks any lawful foundation. He submits that the Petitioner had merely stepped to the gate of his residence when he was apprehended and taken to the police station. The Petitioner, a practising Advocate with no prior infraction, had no intent to disregard any lawful directive. Counsel urges that during the early phase of the pandemic, advisories were fluid and overlapping, and a brief presence at one’s gate without a mask could not reasonably be treated as disobedience of an order under Section 144 of CrPC. He further submits that the complaint under Section 195 of CrPC did not disclose the order alleged to have been violated, its promulgation, or any material indicating that the Petitioner was aware of it.

4. Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State, opposes the petition and supports the order taking cognizance. He submits that the order dated 15^th April, 2020 was duly promulgated, widely publicised, and in force on the relevant date, requiring all persons to wear masks in public. The State contends that, as a practising Advocate, the Petitioner ought to have beeen aware of such directions, and that his presence outside the residence without a mask therefore amounted to disobedience of a duly promulgated order, 3 “Cr.P.C.” CRL.M.C. 7597/2025 Page 2 of 4 warranting proceedings under Section 195 of CrPC.

5. Having heard counsel and examined the record, the limited question is whether the surviving allegation under Section 188 IPC merits continuation. The provision applies where a person, having knowledge of an order duly promulgated by a competent public servant, disobeys it in a manner that causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury, or risk to human life, health, or safety. Three elements therefore matter at the threshold: (i) a lawful and duly promulgated order; (ii) the accused’s knowledge of that order; and (iii) disobedience carrying the requisite causal tendency.

6. In the present case, the Petitioner’s awareness of the order dated 15^th April, 2020 under Section 144 of CrPC can, at best, be inferred, as there is no material to show that the Petitioner had actual or complete knowledge of the said order. Even if one were to assume knowledge, the facts alleged are that the Petitioner was at or just outside his residential gate, not in the midst of a crowd, procession or gathering. The complaint does not show how such conduct caused or risked the mischief contemplated under Section 188 of IPC. The provision is not meant to punish every technical deviation but conduct that obstructs authority or endangers public order or safety. With the Section 269 of IPC charge already dropped for lack of any material of infection, the circumstances pleaded do not disclose the d