India, High Court of Madras, 15 March 2022, Crl. OP No. 5999 of 2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Further areas addressed
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The Respondent had suo motu registered a case against the Petitioner for the offence under Sections 188 and 269 of the Penal Code of India placing the allegation that the Petitioner in defiance of the promulgatory orders issued under Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic had appeared in public. A petition to the High Court sought an order from the Court quashing such FIR against the Petitioner.
The Court held that coming out of the house during the pandemic period should not held to be a reason for spoiling the future of the Petitioner. An unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the future of the Petitioner. Moreover, it was also brought to the notice of the Court that the Government was also going to drop all these cases, which have been registered during the pandemic period against the public.
Facts of the case
The Respondent had suo motu registered a case against the Petitioner for the offence under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC. The allegations in the complaint were that the Petitioner in defiance of the promulgatory orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic had driven a two-wheeler on Periakadai street in the Tiruvannamalai District and when the Respondent had inquired the Petitioner, he had not stated any reasons. The writ petition before the High Court sought the quashing the FIR filed against the petitioner.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court in the matter of the allegation against the Petitioner said that, there is no material evidence to prove that the Petitioner had knowingly attempted to spread infection of any life-endangering disease and it is also not the case of the Respondents who at the time of the incident, the petitioner was affected by COVID-19. So, the contention that going out during pandemic period would spread the disease was without any basis.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The criminal Original Petition was allowed.
The Court found that going out of the house during the pandemic period should not be held to be a reason for spoiling the future of the Petitioner. An unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the future of the Petitioner. Moreover, it was also brought to the attention of the Court that the Government was also going to drop all these cases, which have been registered during the pandemic period against the public, hence the FIR was ordered to be quashed.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court applied the reasonableness principle while stating that an unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the future of the Petitioner. There is no material evidence to show that before registering the case, the permission of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate had been obtained. In such circumstances, the second Respondent has no right to register the case nor to investigate the matter.
