JUDGMENT : SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. 1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being Titagarh Police Station Case No. 27 of 2022 dated 11.01.2022 (G.R. No 326/2022) under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act and under Sections 188/270/500/501/502/ 504/505(1)(a)(b)(c)/120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. 2. The petitioner by occupation is a businessman and a member of an organization namely Bharat Jagaran Andolan or Awaken India Movement (AIM). 3. One Arun Kumar Ghosh, Sub Inspector of Titagarh Police Station, lodged a suo moto complaint to the Officer-In-Charge Titagarh Police Station, alleging inter-alia that: The on 11.01.2022 the complainant along with his force were performing Alpha-22 morning patrolling duty vide Titagarh PS GDE No. 667 dated 11.01.2022. At about 11.05 hours they had reached near Shantinagar Girls High School and noticed that a COVID Vaccination program among the school students between the age group of 15 to 18 years was going on and as result a chaotic situation was created amongst the parents, students and surrounding people at the main entrance of the said school (Vaccination centre). There three persons were announcing not to vaccinate and distributing some leaflets. During enquiry they found out that the alleged accused persons were distributing leaflets and forbidding the students to vaccinate themselves and they were stating the reason that the COVID-19 vaccine is detrimental to human health. The complainant also stated that the alleged accused persons belong to an organization named as ‘India Awakening Movement’ an NGO which indulges in activities of protest against farm laws, and that organization claimed that two people have died after taking vaccine, one was Karunya, supposed to be from South India, and Rithayika, supposed to be form North Eastern States as the names of their parents suggest. They even suggested the parents of youths in their leaflets to think of the said girls before vaccinating their children. The alleged accused persons were doing such illegal work without wearing mask and they also succeeded to stop the normal vaccination program by spreading rumor and false information. They even suggested the parents of youths in their leaflets to think of the said girls before vaccinating their children. The alleged accused persons were doing such illegal work without wearing mask and they also succeeded to stop the normal vaccination program by spreading rumor and false information. Complainant stated that to prevent that chaotic situation he intervened in the spot and said the alleged accused persons about the violation of government order and gathering on public place without masks but they did not pay any attention and they also neglected the information given by the complainant regarding the spread of COVID-19. The alleged accused persons failed to disclose any valid reason of their gathering and distribution of such kind of leaflets which may likely to cause mischief, fear or panic amongst public/local inhabitants leading to instigation of any person to be induced to commit any offence against the state or public tranquility. Such can result into breach of peace. The leaflets were subsequently seized under proper seizure list in presence of witnesses and three persons were arrested. 4. Police submitted several seizure lists on 11.01.2022, 12.01.2022 and 13.01.2022. 5. The petitioner states that the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the instant case in as much as the petitioner and other members of his organization circulated leaflets, where it is mentioned that wearing masks is not mandatory as per the guidelines of World Health Organization (WHO) and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. It states that Medical masks should not be used by healthy persons who are not having any symptom because it creates a false sense of security that can lead to neglecting other essential measures such as washing hands. Further, there is no specific evidence to show health benefit of using masks for non-sick persons in the community. In fact, erroneous use of masks or continuous use of disposable masks for longer than 6 hours or repeated use of the same may actually increase risk of getting an infection. It also incurs unnecessary costs. 6. The petitioner states that the offence under Section 270 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the instant case in as much as there is only limited and inconsistent evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory virus including SARS-Covid-2. It also incurs unnecessary costs. 6. The petitioner states that the offence under Section 270 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the instant case in as much as there is only limited and inconsistent evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory virus including SARS-Covid-2. 7. The petitioner states that the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the instant case as there is no such element involved in the alleged complaint or the actions of the alleged accused persons. 8. The petitioner further states that the offence under Section 505(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in the instant case as the offence as alleged is not relating to spreading rumours but based on statements obtained from the websites and portals of World Health Organization and Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The actions committed by the petitioner does not fall under the purview of offences against public tranquillity. Moreover, from a reply of an RTI Application, dated March 10, 2022, it can be summed up that the Central drugs Standard Control Organization, as on that date, had not granted permission for use of approved COVID-19 vaccines as booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 9. The petitioner states that the offence under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act is not applicable in the instant case as there is no mandatory or statutory direction regarding vaccination issued by the government, against which the petitioner was demonstrating. Moreover, the same was completely a peaceful demonstration to raise awareness within the public. 10. The petitioner’s further case is that the causality assessment results of 22 reported Serious Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) cases following COVID-19 vaccination approved by National AEFI Committee on 18th October, 2021 published by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Immunization Division, dated November 5, 2021, states that 9 out of 22 cases for which Causality assessment has been done were found to have consistent casual association to vaccination. Of these 9 cases, 5 were vaccine product related reaction and 4 cases were immunization anxiety related reaction. 12 cases have inconsistent casual association to vaccination (coincidental - not linked to vaccination), including 5 death cases. There was 1 case (death) of indeterminate category. 11. Of these 9 cases, 5 were vaccine product related reaction and 4 cases were immunization anxiety related reaction. 12 cases have inconsistent casual association to vaccination (coincidental - not linked to vaccination), including 5 death cases. There was 1 case (death) of indeterminate category. 11. That in reply to an RTI Application by a colleague of the petitioner, dated May 27, 2021, the Disaster Management Cell of Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has specifically stated that use of mask or face cover has been advised to all in various SOPs or Guidelines issued by MoHFW. However, as per these guidelines or SOPs its use has not been explicitly made mandatory. It was further stated that no information was available with regard to the side effects of using face masks. 12. That Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General of Health Services, Emergency Medical Relief has issued Guidelines on use of masks by public with respect to Novel Corona-Virus Disease (COVID-19), from where it gets clearly specified that persons having no symptoms are not to use mask, and it states that medical masks should not be use mask, and it states that medical masks should not be used by healthy persons not having any symptom as there is no scientific evidence to show benefit of using masks for non-sick persons in the community. The guidelines also specify as to when and who should use medical masks, apart from health care worker, and it answers that when a person develops cough and fever, visits healthcare facilities, cares for an ill person and when close family contacts are suspect or confirmed cases. 13. In reply to a RTI Application dated August 5, 2021 the Central Public Information Officer and Administrative Officer of AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, elucidated the fact that a Consent Form is signed by the beneficiary after reading and understanding the same before taking a vaccine. Such consent form consists the name and type of vaccine, manufacturer; route and site of administration, doser; risks and benefits of vaccination; side effects if any and whom to contact and what to do in case of any side effect; any additional source of information related to the vaccine etc. Thus, after reading the same and signing the document, a person is supposed to get the vaccine, and the beneficiary may or may not sign the informed consent form. 14. Thus, after reading the same and signing the document, a person is supposed to get the vaccine, and the beneficiary may or may not sign the informed consent form. 14. The petitioner submits that the allegations made in FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 15. Hence the revision. 16. As per seizure list dated 11.01.2022 at page 26, 310 leaflets were seizure from the possession of the accused persons. 17. Written Notes of Argument has been filed on behalf of the petitioner relying upon the following Judgments: (i) Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 533 (ii) Jagadish Chandra and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Another in CRR 1968 of 2022 18. A copy of the Writ Petition (Civil) 1220 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner in support of their contention. A copy of the leaflet seized has also been annexed at page 4 of the Written Argument filed by the petitioner. 19. The present proceeding has been initiated by Sub-Inspector Arun Kr. Ghosh against three accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 188/270/500/501/502/504/ 505(1)(a)(b)(c)/120B of IPC & 51(b) D.M. Act. 20. From the materials on records including a copy of the leaflet seized and the Written Complaint, it appears that at the time of the alleged incident a Covid vaccination program was being conducted near Shantinagar Girls’ High School for School students between the age group of 15 to 18 years, when the petitioner/accuseds (three persons) were announcing not to vaccinate and distributing some leaflets. During enquiry it was found that three persons as noted above were distributing some leaflets and forbidding the students to vaccinate themselves citing the reason that the said COVID-19 Vaccine is detrimental to human health. Those people belonged to an organization named as “India Awakening Movement” an NGO which indulged in activities of protest against farm laws. The organization claimed that two people have died after taking vaccine, one was Karunya, supposed to be from South India, and Rithayika, supposed to be from North Eastern states as the names of their parents suggests. They even suggested to the parents of youths in their leaflets “Think of these girls before vaccinating your children.” 21. The organization claimed that two people have died after taking vaccine, one was Karunya, supposed to be from South India, and Rithayika, supposed to be from North Eastern states as the names of their parents suggests. They even suggested to the parents of youths in their leaflets “Think of these girls before vaccinating your children.” 21. The said conduct of the petitioner was prima facie in disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, by creating panic among the public, by distributing leaflets projecting the death of two young girls. This conduct was sufficient to cause a riot or affray as the public was already scared for life considering the fatal effects of the COVID -19 pandemic. 22. The said conduct prima facie constitutes the ingredients required for the offence under Section 188 of IPC. 23. By trying to cause panic among the public and discouraging them to take vaccine and wear masks, the petitioner’s act was prima facie malignant and was likely to spread infection of COVID-19, which at the relevant period was un-doubtly dangerous to life and thus the ingredients required to prima facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 270 of IPC is also present against the petitioner. 24. This conduct of the petitioner was also prima facie defamatory of the program under taken by the Government for the welfare of the general public and thus the ingredients required to constitute a prima facie offence und Section 500 IPC is also present. 25. The printing of leaflets containing the prima facie defamatory material also makes out a prima facie case under Section 501 IPC, but as the said leaflet were admittedly not for sale, the ingredients to make out an offence under Section 502 is not prima facie not made out. 26. The statement in the leaflet was sufficient to cause public mischief and alarm to public and was also sufficient to incite the public to disturb public tranquility and commit an offence against the State who had under taken the program of vaccination for the welfare of the public. 27. Thus prima facie offences under Sections 505(1)(a)(b)(c) is made out and the proceeding in this case should be permitted to proceed towards trial. 28. 27. Thus prima facie offences under Sections 505(1)(a)(b)(c) is made out and the proceeding in this case should be permitted to proceed towards trial. 28. A prima facie case is also present under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, as the program of vaccination was being conducted by the Government and the leaflet being printed and distributed by the petitioner was clearly to ensure that the directions of the Government should not be complied. 29. In Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India and Others in WP (Civil) No. 1031 of 2019 and Ghulam Nabi Azad vs. Union of India and Another in WP (Civil) No. 1164 of 2019, decided on January 10, 2020, the Supreme Court held: “152. In this view, we issue the following directions: (a)...................................... (b) We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The restriction upon such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under Article 19 (2) and (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality.” 30. Article 19(2) of the Constitution lays down: “19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech: (1)...................................... (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” 31. Thus encouraging such acts against the interest of the State and the Country would clearly amount to abuse of the process of Court and the present revision is thus liable to be dismissed and the proceedings in the present case is to be permitted to proceed towards expeditious trial, in the interest of justice. 32. CRR No. 1306 of 2022 is thus dismissed. 33. 32. CRR No. 1306 of 2022 is thus dismissed. 33. The trial shall proceed for offences punishable under Sections 188/270/500/501/504/ 505(1)(a)(b)(c)/120B of IPC and 51(b) of the D.M. Act, but the Court shall not be influenced by the observations of this Court and dispose of the case in accordance with law. 34. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 35. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 36. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.