FIR for lockdown violations quashed for non-compliance with the Disaster Management Act’s Section 60 complaint requirement.

The petitioner, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, was named as an accused in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2020, registered on 19 April 2020 under Sections 188, 269, 270 and 271 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 51(b), 56 and 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The prosecution alleged that he had attended a “fish party” along with approximately 20–30 persons during the COVID-19 lockdown, thereby violating social-distancing directions issued by the district administration.

The petitioner contended that the alleged conduct, at most, constituted an administrative lapse or dereliction of duty.

He had already faced departmental proceedings arising from the same allegations and had received minor punishment.

The Block Development Officer and Circle Officer, who were co-accused on similar allegations, were exonerated in departmental proceedings.

The petitioner further argued that the statutory procedure under Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act had not been followed, since the case was initiated through an FIR rather than the requisite complaint.

The investigation had not concluded, although the FIR had been registered in 2020.

Whether the FIR and the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, arising from his alleged attendance at a fish party during the COVID-19 lockdown, disclosed a criminal offence warranting continuation of the proceedings?

Whether the prosecution under the Disaster Management Act was legally maintainable in the absence of the complaint contemplated by Section 60 of that Act?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 188, 269, 270 and 271 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 51(b), 56 and 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The Court also applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, which prescribes the manner in which cognizance of offences under the Act may be taken, including through a complaint by the competent authority or by a person who has given the prescribed notice.

In applying this principle, the Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which recognises the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where their continuation would constitute an abuse of process.

The Court found that the allegations principally concerned a violation of social-distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 lockdown and arose from the petitioner’s attendance at a private fish party.

Although the petitioner might have committed an administrative lapse as a serving police officer, the circumstances did not justify continuation of a criminal prosecution, particularly when he had already faced departmental action, the similarly placed co-accused had been exonerated, and he had subsequently retired with an unblemished career.

The Court also noted the unexplained pendency of the investigation since 2020.

Further, it took note of the petitioner’s contention that the statutory procedure under Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act had not been complied with because the case had been registered by way of an FIR rather than initiated through the prescribed complaint mechanism.

Considering the petty nature of the alleged violation, the administrative character of the lapse, the surrounding pandemic circumstances, and the principles in Bhajan Lal, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed the FIR dated 19 April 2020 and all consequential prosecution arising from it.

The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly allowed.