Bombay High Court cancels FIR claiming the petitioner spread infection, stating there is no proof of them being a carrier during the Covid lockdown mask rules.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an FIR that claimed a breach of the Covid-19 mask rule, noting there was no proof that the Petitioner had the virus. The Court accepted the Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS to cancel the FIR against him, which was filed under Sections 269 and 188 of the IPC. The Police accused the Petitioner of being seen without a mask or proper permission. They claimed this behavior could spread the coronavirus and violated the Order under Section 144 of the CrPC issued by the Goa State Government.
A Division Bench, consisting of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta, stated, “Moreover, the report does not specify the exact guidelines that were allegedly broken. Without clear guidelines, we cannot assume the Petitioner acted unlawfully. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was COVID-19 positive or that he violated the Section 144 order from the Goa State Government. Records show the Investigating Agency never medically examined the Petitioner to check for any infectious disease. Thus, he cannot be considered to have committed an offense under Section 269 of the IPC.”
Rohan Desai represented the Petitioner, while S.G. Bhobe acted for the Respondents. The Petitioner claimed there was no reason to file a cognizable offence against him, even if the FIR’s claims were true. He argued that the FIR was filed with the intent to harass him. The High Court pointed out that to apply Section 188 of the IPC, it must be shown that the Petitioner’s disobedience led to a negative outcome from a Public Servant’s order. The Court noted, “No such event is alleged to have happened.” Thus, it concluded that the offence under Section 188 of the IPC was not established. The Court explained, “To prove an offence under Section 188 of IPC, mere disobedience is not enough. The prosecution must demonstrate the elements of the offence to show that the individual committed an act as described in Section 188 of IPC. Therefore, this Court does not find any evidence of an offence under Sections 269 and 188 of IPC.”
The Court further stated, “Looking at Section 269 IPC, it requires that the accused’s actions must be likely to spread a dangerous disease. The report submitted by the respondent under Section 173 Cr.P.C. does not show any initial evidence that the petitioner or his family had an infectious disease or could spread one. Without this evidence, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was a carrier of infection or could have spread it.”
The Court decided, “Based on the discussions above, the petition is granted, and the FIR from 19.07.2020, with Crime No. 128/2020 for violations of Sections 269 and 188 of IPC, along with charge sheet No. 131/2020 dated 26.09.2024 against the petitioner at JMFC, Canacona, is canceled and nullified. The rule is confirmed as stated.” Therefore, the High Court approved the Petition.
Cause Title: Deepak Naik @ Dipak Naik v. State Of Goa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-GOA:1941-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Rohan Desai, Ashay Priolkar and Pranav Pathak
Respondents: Public Prosecutor S.G. Bhobe
