O R D E R

Petitioner is the sole accused in CC 1863/2020 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur, which was filed alleging offence under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 4(2)(a) read with Section 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance 2020. The petitioner is running a flower shop, by name Sreeja Flowers, in Kannur in building No.51/2894 of Kannur Corporation. The allegation is that the petitioner, by violating the statutory requirement that he should follow Covid protocol by following social distancing rule, did not obey the same and opened the shop without giving instructions to the customers for keeping social distancing and thus violated public safety and thereby committed the above stated offence. The said act was allegedly committed at 12:25 p.m. on 30.08.2020. Accordingly, a suo motu crime No.1443/2020 of Kannur Town police station was registered by the Sub Inspector and after investigation the charge sheet was laid.

2. The petitioner contends that the allegations against him are totally false, none of the offences are attracted against him, that it was the first day of Onam and his flower shop situates near the Muneeshwaran kovil, that there is no allegation that he had made people to gather in front of his shop. He had no control over the people who had come to purchase flowers. Only because some people had gathered in the locality he cannot be prosecuted; even if it is admitted that the petitioner is running the shop nearby, he cannot be found fault with the above stated offences. In the absence of any allegation that he had made people to gather at the place, the offences cannot be attracted. Moreover, the crime was registered alleging that he had conducted business as Dinesh Flowers, whereas the final report is laid as though his shop is Sreeja Flowers. The scene mahazar also does not contain necessary details. There are several flower shops near the Muneeshwaran kovil adjacent to each other and the petitioner’s shop is only one among them. He is conducting the business in building No.LXI/2893 under the name Sreeja Flowers as revealed from Annexures-2 to 4. The above documents would clearly indicate that he is conducting business in the shop Sreeja Flowers. But the crime was registered as though it is Dinesh Flowers. According to him, running of flower shops is not a prohibited act. It was Onam season and the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in a case without any basis at all.

Therefore, he seeks the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel has reiterated the contentions.

4. It is true that the FIR was registered on 30.08.2020 after finding the petitioner engaged in sale of flowers in a shop by name 'Dinesh Flowers'. But later, during the course of investigation it came out that the name of his shop is Sreeja Flowers and a report was given to the court, which is produced by the petitioner himself. Therefore, the contention that the final report does not conform to the first information report has no basis. Even otherwise a first information report is lodged only to kick start an investigation and it need not contain all the necessary details. May be on prima facie impression of the detecting officer that he is running a shop by name 'Dinesh Flowers' that the crime was registered. But, during course of investigation, it came out that the real name of the shop is 'Sreeja Flowers', the report was filed and the final report was laid.

Therefore that is not a reason to quash the proceedings.

5. However, there are valid and reasonable grounds to state that such a final report cannot be sustained against the petitioner. Firstly, as adverted earlier, even though prosecution has alleged that the petitioner had committed offence under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 4(2)(a) read with 5 of the Epidemic D