Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 189 (MEG)

Deepul Sangma v. Superintendent of Police

2022-07-18

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that an FIR dated 16.09.2020 was lodged before the Officer-In- Charge, Kharkutta Police Station, North Garo Hills by the Sr. Medical & Health Officer, Kharkutta PHC who is arrayed as the respondent No. 3 herein. 2. Mr. Gautam has also submitted that the contents of the said FIR is such that the petitioner herein was accused of violation of COVID-19 protocol and has particularly met the Block Programme Manager (BPM), Shri B.D. Sangma and had told him that the doctor in charge of Kharkutta PHC is operating against the guidelines of COVID-19 protocol which is a harassment to the general public for which very soon the doctor will be beaten by the public. The petitioner was also accused of instigating general public and bringing passengers from Shillong while telling them that they are no longer required to be quarantined. For the act of spreading unverified and false information and for endangering the life and safety of the said informant and the general public, the police was requested to investigate into the matter. 3. On the basis of the said FIR, the police have registered a case being being Kharkutta PS Case No. 08(09)2020 u/s 188/269/270/506 IPC r/w section 3(2)(i) of the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the accusations made in the said FIR, had accordingly approached this Court with this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 16.09.2020 and the criminal proceedings arising out of it in Kharkutta PS Case No. 08(09)2020 u/s 188/269/270/506 IPC r/w section 3(2)(i) of the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. 5. Before proceeding to argue on the merits of this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the Investigating Officer (I/O) has filed the charge sheet which was forwarded to the competent court and the matter is now seizin by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, North Garo Hills. However, even though the charge sheet has been filed, this petition is still valid inasmuch as the grievance of the petition can still be addressed by this Court, it is further submitted. 6. However, even though the charge sheet has been filed, this petition is still valid inasmuch as the grievance of the petition can still be addressed by this Court, it is further submitted. 6. On the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been no instance where the petitioner has violated any of the COVID-19 protocol and as far as inter-district movement of persons within the State is concerned, the attention of this Court is drawn to the public notice dated 25.08.2020 being No.POL.75/2020/Pt.I/60 issued by the Chief Secretary of the State, to say that there is no restriction on the said inter-district movement within the State. The petitioner, being a driver of a tourist taxi ferrying passengers from Shillong to Garo Hills and other places, therefore, it cannot be said that he has violated the COVID-19 protocols. 7. Again, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no ingredient of section 506 IPC, where the petitioner is accused of criminal intimidation for which he is to be penalized accordingly since, there is no evidence that he has ever intimidated the complainant/respondent No. 3 and even if assuming but not admitting that he had used the words 'very soon doctor will be beaten by public', the same cannot be construed as an act of criminal intimidation. 8. For the reasons stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this petition may be allowed since the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court and a travesty of justice since no offence has been made out against the petitioner on the basis of the said FIR. 9. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP. in rebuttal has submitted that the petitioner was found to have violated COVID-19 protocol and as such the respondent No. 3 was compelled to lodge the FIR in this regard. 10. The learned Addl. PP has also cited instances where the petitioner has been found to have violated the COVID-19 protocol which has also been reflected in the FIR wherein he was accused of being involved in an argument with the complainant on COVID-19 protocol related matters at the entry point, Kharkutta regarding the requirement of quarantine for travellers from Shillong. The learned Addl. PP has also cited instances where the petitioner has been found to have violated the COVID-19 protocol which has also been reflected in the FIR wherein he was accused of being involved in an argument with the complainant on COVID-19 protocol related matters at the entry point, Kharkutta regarding the requirement of quarantine for travellers from Shillong. Another instance is that he had brought passengers from Shillong and entered Kharkutta via some other routes by avoiding the designated check point to the extent that the office of the complainant found it difficult to track the returnees. Yet another instance is the fact that in clear violation of the COVID-19 guidelines he had carried excess number of passengers in his vehicle while ferrying them to and from Kharkutta. 11. It is also submitted that at the relevant point of time though restrictions on inter-district movement of persons have been lifted, yet inter-state movement is still restricted and subject to checking at the designated points for which the returnees have been advised to quarantine themselves, therefore, the action of the petitioner would clearly indicate that he has violated the COVID-19 protocol and is liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law. 12. Further submitting that the case against the petitioner has been taken up by the trial court upon the I/O submitting the chargesheet, extract of the chargesheet would show that the statements of the relevant witnesses bore testimony to the fact that the petitioner has been lawfully proceeded against. Even in the statement of the petitioner, he has clearly admitted that he had a quarrel with the complainant at the covid checkpoint. 13. This Court has given due weightage to the submission and contention raised by the parties herein and has also perused the relevant records from the trial court. 14. Called upon to decide this matter, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC under the fact and circumstances of this case is required to be examined herein. 15. It is well settled that the high court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 CrPC has to be cautious and circumspective since the court cannot, on the basis of the complaint appearing in the FIR come to any conclusion as to whether the allegations are well founded or not. 15. It is well settled that the high court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 CrPC has to be cautious and circumspective since the court cannot, on the basis of the complaint appearing in the FIR come to any conclusion as to whether the allegations are well founded or not. However, where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same, on scrutiny does not make out or disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or where the allegation made are patently absurd and improbable to lead one to a conclusion that no case can be made out against the accused, therefore in exercise of its inherent power, the high court should not hesitate to quash such proceedings at the threshold. 16. The submission of the learned Addl. PP. and the reference to the facts and circumstances of the case leading to the complicity of the petitioner in the matter cannot escape the attention of this Court. During the time of covid-19 pandemic, the citizenry is put to notice on the required procedure during such times and are called upon to cooperate with the authorities, particularly officials of the Health Department, to ensure not only their own safety but also that of others. The action of the petitioner prima facie, would show that he was not cooperating with the authorities in this regard. Be that as it may, evidence has to be adduced to prove or disprove the case of the prosecution. At this stage of the proceedings, it would not be proper to interfere with the same. 17. Viewed in the light of the above observations, materials on record including the statements of the relevant witnesses would show that the allegation in the FIR do disclose an offence. Whether the petitioner has actually committed the same will only be brought out during the trial for which this Court at this juncture cannot scuttle the proceedings or short circuit the same to the detriment of due administration of justice. 18. In the final analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make a case of exercise of inherent power under section 482 CrPC. 19. This petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. 20. 18. In the final analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make a case of exercise of inherent power under section 482 CrPC. 19. This petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. 20. Registry is directed to send back the lower court records for the learned trial court to proceed with the trial. 21. Petition disposed of. No costs.