HC: Can’t take action now for flouting Covid rules 2 years ago

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 5

Nearly two years after birthday celebrations culminated into a criminal case for not following the Covid norms in violation of a Deputy Commissioner’s order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the FIR. Justice Harkesh Manuja made it clear that the pandemic had turned milder and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Justice Manuja was hearing a petition for quashing an FIR registered on June 9, 2021, under Section 188, IPC, and Section 51, Disaster Management Act, at the Satnampura police station in Kapurthala district.

Unintended act

Offences alleged in the FIR under ordinary circumstances are only unintended casual act, without any real intention to break the law. It was only because of the Covid-19 pandemic that such actions came within the purview of an offence. —Justice Harkesh Manuja, High Court

Justice Manuja’s Bench was told that an ASI received a viral video on his WhatsApp, in which one of the petitioners was celebrating birthday at his house, along with three co-accused and 20 to 25 unidentified persons. As per the allegations in the FIR, none of them was wearing a mask or maintaining social distance. They had gathered at night, resulting in violation of the order dated May 28, 2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Justice Manuja asserted the offences alleged under ordinary circumstances were merely unintended casual acts, without real intention to break the law. The element of “mens rea” or intention was not even present in the case as it was only because of the pandemic that such actions came within the purview of an offence.

“At this stage when the effect of the pandemic has almost mitigated and it has turned into an endemic with very milder aftereffects, thus, to allow continuing the proceedings of this case will not be in the interest of justice but would rather amount to abuse of process of law,” Justice Manuja asserted.

Going into the technical aspect of the matter, Justice Manuja asserted maximum punishment upon the one proven guilty of the offence mentioned in the FIR was one year. Section 468 of the CrPC barred the court concerned from taking cognizance after lapse of the limitation period of one year. As the FIR was registered on June 9, 2021, the limitation would expire on June 8, 2022. The trial court might condone the delay on an application. But valid or sufficient reason was not on record before the court in the state’s reply.

Referring to offence under Section 188, Justice Manuja asserted disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant was required to constitute the offence. The court was mandated to take cognizance only on a complaint by a public servant. But there was no material to show that magistrate’s permission was obtained before registering the case. As such, the applicability of Section 188 was erroneous and the respondent had no right to register the case and investigate the matter.