Back
Quashes FIR Against Retired DSP Prabhat Bhushan Shrivastav Over Covid Fish Party
The has come to the rescue of a retired police officer whose attendance at a lockdown-era fish party snowballed into a criminal case. In its judgment, a single-judge bench of Justice Soni Shrivastava quashed FIR No.129 of 2020 registered at in Jehanabad against former DSP Prabhat Bhushan Shrivastav, holding that continuing the case would be an .
A fish party and a five-year-old FIR
The FIR was lodged on , during the Covid-19 lockdown, alleging that Shrivastav—then posted as DSP, Jehanabad—attended a fish gathering with 20 to 30 other people, violating social-distancing guidelines issued by the . It invoked Sections 188, 269, 270 and 271 of the and Sections 51(B), 56 and 57 of the , 2005.
Along with Shrivastav, a Circle Officer and a Block Development Officer were named in the FIR. The petitioner faced departmental proceedings on the same allegations and was awarded a minor punishment. The enquiry against the two other accused officers, by contrast, ended in their exoneration.
"Administrative lapse, not criminal offence"
The petitioner argued through advocates , and that even if he had breached Covid norms, his conduct could only amount to an administrative dereliction, not a criminal offence. His counsel also invoked , which mandates that under the Act may be taken only on a complaint by the , the , the or by a person who has given 30 days' prior notice. That procedure was allegedly not followed; instead a regular FIR was registered.
The State, represented by , opposed the plea, arguing that the allegations in the FIR were sufficient to make out the offences.
How the High Court reasoned
Justice Shrivastava found the case to be rooted in a "petty issue" and noted that the allegation was essentially about the breach of social-distancing guidelines. The court observed:
"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."
The judgment also recorded that Shrivastav is
"now a retired man from service, having an unblemished career,"
and that the investigation had still not concluded even years after the FIR.
Relying on the settled principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the court said the under must be exercised where a criminal proceeding becomes an .
"The of the Court must come into play"
The High Court's key observations included:
"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 Covid-19 Pandemic was itself an enormous challenge and in case of violation of some social distancing guidelines, the powers , in order to secure , can be invoked."
"The of the Court must come into play in case a criminal proceeding becomes an ."
What the quashing means
The court allowed the and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it. The decision underscores that not every violation of Covid-era guidelines should be converted into , particularly when the accused has already faced and co-accused have been exonerated. It also reinforces the High Court's in preventing abuse of criminal process in cases of marginal, administrative misconduct.
