The Court held that violation of social distancing guidelines during the pandemic, amounting to administrative lapses rather than criminal offenses, and the failure to follow the mandatory complaint procedure under Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, justify quashing the FIR to prevent abuse of process.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Despite issuance of notice to the opposite parties, no one appears on their behalf.

3. By way of the present application, the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’) bearing Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2020 dated 19.04.2020 registered under Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 of the IPC and 51(B), 56, 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has been put to challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset, that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was the D.S.P., Jehanabad, who was made an accused in the present case along with the Circle Officer and the Block Development Officer for having attended a fish party during period of lockdown and thus, violated the directions of social distancing issued by the District Administration, being government servants. Learned counsel has further pointed out that upon the same allegations, the petitioner was also subjected to departmental proceedings, which has resulted in minor punishment to the petitioner as a delinquent. It is further submitted that even if the petitioner committed some act against the norms, it would have only entailed an administrative liability on account of dereliction of duty and no criminal offence could be levelled against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the enquiry report with regard to the two other accused persons being the B.D.O. and the Circle Officer (Annexure-12) whereby the above mentioned two persons were exonerated from the allegations and were not found guilty. It is also a fact that the FIR was lodged in the year 2020.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the guidelines of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs with regard to the social distancing and Natural Disaster Management Act, it has been stated that the District Magistrate would deploy the Executive Magistrate as Incident Commander, would be responsible for overall implementation of any measure in their respective jurisdiction and further Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, clearly stipulates that cognizance would be taken of an offence under this Act only on a complaint made by the National Authority, the State Authority or the Central Government or any person who has given notice of not less than 30 days in the manner prescribed of the alleged offence. It has been submitted that in the present case, the said procedure has not been followed and instead of a complaint by the said authorities, the present FIR was registered.

7. Learned APP for the State, however, opposes the present application on the ground that the allegations have been made out from the FIR against the present petitioner.

8. After having heard the parties and having gone through the entire materials on record, it appears that the present FIR has been lodged on a petty issue of attending a fish party by the petitioner during the Covid pandemic lockdown period along with 20-30 other persons. The allegation primarily pertains to violation of social distancing guidelines during the covid pandemic lockdown and the petitioner, who was the D.S.P., may have committed some administrative lapses but it is also a fact that the other co-accused persons faced with similar allegations have already been exonerated. It is also a fact that the petitioner was the then D.S.P. and is now a retired man from service, having an unblemished career.

9. This Court has also noticed that the investigation of the case also has yet not concluded