Restrictions during pandemic averted greater havoc, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, November 30

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the grave situation following the Covid-19 outbreak would have led to a greater havoc in the absence of restrictions. But an FIR’s registration under Section 188 of the IPC for disobedience of prohibitory orders by a district magistrate was impermissible and liable to be quashed.

Can’t register FIR

Merely because the offence under Section 188 of the IPC is cognisable, the police are not authorised to register an FIR. The order for framing of charges by the magistrate, too, ought to conform to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Justice Aman Chaudhary

Justice Aman Chaudhary observed: “Adverting to the period of the Covid-19 pandemic, indubitably the untiring efforts of the administration, its officials, police personnel, medics, and paramedics, etc. are laudable, to say the least. But for the imposition of restrictions in the larger public interest, the grave situation that was emerging would have inevitably caused much more havoc in the lives of people than it actually did.”

He said the surge in infection was thereby contained, which was the need of the hour. But proceedings for the administrative orders’ alleged violations were required to be examined in terms of “the procedural requirement of the provisions and the law laid down”.

Justice Chaudhary was hearing a petition by Shubham for quashing an FIR registered on April 29, 2021, under Section 188 at the Rohtak Civil Lines police station. Quashing of consequential proceedings was also sought. Referring to the statutory provisions and plethora of judgments, he asserted that the legislative intent was manifestly clear. It was mandatory on part of the public servant concerned to file a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional magistrate, where an “offence” under Section 188 was committed. The police were not authorised to register an FIR merely because the offence under Section 188 was cognisable. The order of framing charge, too, was required to conform to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a case, where it was observed that “the application of mind by the magistrate should be reflected in the order”. Mere statement that he had gone through the complaint and documents and heard the complainant would not be sufficient.

He added the district magistrate’s complaint of a date subsequent to the final report lacked comprehensive facts. It listed 206 FIRs, which made the sole basis of the complaint. A reference was also made to a report by a SP. But it was also of a subsequent date and was even part of the documents appended therewith.