Charges under Sections 269 and 270 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act were quashed due to lack of evidence and arbitrary registration, constituting an abuse of process.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner/A1, who is facing trial in S.T.C.No.748 of 2022, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel, for the offences under Sections 269 and 270 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 , has filed the quash application.

2. The case against the petitioner is that, on 05.08.2020, while the second respondent was on patrol duty, the petitioner, along with other individuals, assembled at the location of the incident and staged a protest against the Government. The protest was against the construction of a Ramar Temple in Ayodhya, the Muttalak Act, and the removal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir guaranteed under Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Based on the above complaint, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.324 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 269 and 270 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 against the petitioner and others.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offences and despite the fact that the complaint given by the second respondent does not make out any cognizable offences against the petitioner, the first respondent arbitrarily and mechanically registered a case in Crime No.324 of 2020 for offences under Sections 269 and 270 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 , in order to appease his higher officials.

3.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the version of the complaint provided by the second respondent, along with the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the statements of the witnesses, does not prima facie make out a case, and therefore, the same is not maintainable. Although the F.I.R. and the charge sheet do not establish any offence under Sections 269 and 270 of the I.P.C. or Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 , the first respondent willfully registered the case with mala fide intent and also laid the charge sheet for the offences under and 270 of the I.P.C. Moreover, no other member of the public has lodged a complaint regarding the petitioners or the incident.

3.2. The learned counsel submits that the first respondent subsequently failed to properly investigate the case and arbitrarily laid the charge sheet against seven accused persons in S.T.C.No.748 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eranial, and the case was taken cognizance.

3.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent failed to consider the fact that the petitioner did not violate the lockdown restrictions, arbitrarily registered the case without any material evidence. The first respondent also failed to consider that no person in the petitioner's village was affected by COVID-19, and hence, the invocation of Section 269 of the I.P.C. is not substantiated.

3.4. The learned counsel further submits that the first respondent failed to take into account that the public gathering was disbanded within a few minutes without any disturbance, and no untoward incident took place on the date of occurrence. The second respondent is not the competent authority to lodge a complaint against the petitioner.

3.5. The learned counsel also submits that the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and the respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands. Hence, the complaint deserves to be quashed in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others , AIR 1992 SC 604 . Further, the first respondent ought to have followed the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Peer Maideen vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10774 of 2020 dated 05.10.2020 and in the case of M. Ebenezar vs. Inspector of Police in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 11806 of 2015 dated 22.10.2018 and in the case of Krishnamoorthy and others vs. State in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 9889 of 2017 dated