Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 27 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913
CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
136
CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.03.2025
Jarnail Singh and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rahi Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, is for quashing of FIR No.299 dated 08.09.2020 registered under
Sections 188, 269, 505(2) IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005, at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar
(Rural) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR (supra) was
registered after the petitioners along with others allegedly staged a
protest regarding the non-provision of a medical report for one Gurchet
Singh, who had passed away.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that
the petitioners along with others staged the protest on account of the
malpractices committed by some medical professionals during the
COVID-19 pandemic and the FIR (supra) was registered on the basis of
wrong information. He further submits that the FIR (supra) was
registered in violation of Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., as Section 188
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:52:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913
CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 2
IPC requires a written complaint from the concerned public servant or
superior and, therefore, the mandatory drill of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has
not been followed. Further, no prima facie offence under Sections 269
and 505(2) IPC are made out against the present petitioners. In support
of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
order of this Court in Designated Courts for MP’s/MLA’s vs. State of
Punjab and Others passed in CWP-PIL-29-2021 and other connected
cases, where similar FIRs, registered during the COVID-19 pandemic,
were quashed by this Court, due to improper procedure and lack of valid
evidence.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made
by the petitioners on the ground that the protest was unlawful, which led
to registration of the FIR (supra).
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that the FIR (supra) was registered without following the proper
legal procedure, and the allegations made in the FIR do not constitute a
valid offence under the relevant Sections as the mandatory drill of
Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in CWP-PIL-29-2021
and other connected cases, has already dealt the issue involved in the
present case in extenso and has quashed all the FIRs, which were
registered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The operative part of the
said order dated 01.10.2024, reads as follows:-
“5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated
09.02.2024 took note of the fact that a large number of2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 3
cases pertaining to the period of Covid-19 Pandemic
registered under the afore-noted sections were clogging the
judicial system. It was further observed that the Covid-19
Pandemic had posed an enormous challenge to mankind
and the public by and large had followed the orders of the
authorities and only in an emergent situation, the people
had ventured out for food, medicines and other essential
commodities and in such compelling circumstances had
violated the orders put in place by the authorities. It was in
such circumstances that it was directed that all further
proceedings pending before the authorities/Courts in cases
registered under Section 188, 269, 270 IPC read with
Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section
51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, would remain
stayed.
6. Therefore, we deem it appropriate at the first
instance to deal with the cases which pertain to Section
188 IPC simpliciter.
7. The State of Punjab, State of Haryana and U.T.,
Chandigarh, have furnished the list of the cases registered
under Section 188 IPC during the above-said period of
Covid-19 Pandemic.
8. Section 188 IPC is reproduced hereunder:-
188. Disobedience to order duly
promulgated by public servant.– Whoever,
knowing that, by an order promulgated by a
public servant lawfully empowered to
promulgate such order, he is directed to
abstain from a certain act, or to take certain
order with certain property in his possession
or under his management, disobeys such
direction,3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 4
shall, if such disobedience causes or
tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or
injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or
injury, to any person lawfully employed, be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month or with fine
which may extend to two hundred rupees, or
with both;
and if such disobedience causes or
trends to cause danger to human life, health or
safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or
affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.-It is not necessary that the
offender should intend to produce harm, or
contemplate his disobedience as likely to
produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of
the order which he disobeys, and that his
disobedience produces, or is likely to produce,
harm.”
9. A reference is required to be made to Section 195(1)
(a) Cr.P.C. as it deals with taking cognizance of offence
punishable under Section 188 IPC. For ready reference,
Section 195(1) (a) Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:-
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority
of public servants, for offences against public
justice and for offences relating to documents given
in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance -
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913
CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 5
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections
172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to
commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit
such offence, except on the complaint in
writing of the public servant concerned or
other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;
XX XX XX
10. It is manifest from a bare reading of Section 195(1)(a)
Cr.P.C. that the Courts shall not take cognizance of a
complaint under Section 188 IPC unless it is initiated in
writing by the public servant authorized to do so. In the
event, the complaint is not made by a public servant, who
is authorized to do so, it would not be maintainable.
Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 1
SCC 278, wherein it was held that the provision of Section
195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature and no Court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences
mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as
required under that Section.
11. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab, the State of
Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh, while relying upon the
respective affidavits submit that a large number of FIRs,
which were registered simpliciter under Section 188 IPC,
had been done at the instance of the police and not by a
public servant authorized to do so in terms of Section 195
Cr.P.C.
12. It is reiterated that the Covid-19 Pandemic posed an
enormous challenge to mankind. It was an extraordinary
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913
CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 6
and unprecedented situation. The law enforcement and
other agencies including those maintaining essential
services, were overstretched and the general public at
large was also facing great hardship as it was a compelling
situation. It is apparent that there were instances where
people had to venture out of their houses in search of food,
medicines or due to other emergent situations and in
process, they violated the prohibitory orders issued by the
authorities.
13. The High Court being a Constitutional Court is also
required to impart complete justice. Section 482 Cr.P.C.
empowers the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to
prevent the abuse of the process of law to secure the ends
of justice. Similar powers can be exercised under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as well, wherein the
jurisdiction of the High Court as a Constitutional Court is
wider.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Agarwal and
others vs. Sanjay Sharma and others, (2021) 5 SCC 524
has held as under:-
“18.1 As observed and held by this Court in catena
of decisions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal
proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate
into weapon of harassment. When the Court is
satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an
abuse of process of law or that it amounts to
bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of
inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.
18.2 As held by this Court in the case of Parbatbhai
Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Section
482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision.
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 7
The statute saves the inherent power of the High
Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as
are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process
of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Same are the powers with the High Court,
when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution.”
15. Further, in the case of Babita Lila and another vs.
Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 647, the Supreme Court has
laid down as follows:-
“46. That the provisions of Section 195 of the Code
are mandatory so much so that non-compliance
thereof would vitiate the prosecution and all
consequential orders, has been ruled by this Court,
amongst others in C. Muniappan and Others vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein the
following observations in Sachida Nand Singh and
Another vs. State of Bihar and Another (1998) 2 SCC
493 were recorded with approval.
“7…..Section 190 of the Code empowers ‘any
Magistrate of the First Class’ to take
cognizance of ‘any offence’ upon receiving a
complaint, or police report or information or
upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts
such general powers of the Magistrate, and
the general right of a person to move the court
with a complaint is to that extent curtained. It
is a wellrecognised canon of interpretation
that provision curbing the general jurisdiction
of the court must normally receive strict
interpretation unless the statute or the context
requires otherwise…..”. (emphasis supplied).
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 8
47. There is thus no escape from the proposition that
for a valid complaint under Section 195 of the Code,
the mandate thereof has to be essentially abided and
as is easily perceivable this is to prevent frivolous,
speculative and unscrupulous allegations relating to
judicial proceedings in any court, lest the process of
law is abused and public time is wasted in avoidable
litigation.”
16. This Court in Shubham vs. State of Haryana, 2022
SCC OnLine P&H 4072 has held as under:-
“19. Adverting to the period of Covid-19
pandemic, indubitably the untiring efforts of the
administration, its officials, police personnel, medics
and paramedics etc. are laudable, to say the least.
But for the imposition of restrictions, in larger public
interest, the grave situation that was emerging,
would have inevitably caused much more havoc in
the lives of people, than it actually did, the surge of
the cases of infection having been thereby contained,
which was the need of the hour. Be that as it may, the
proceedings for the alleged violations committed of
the administrative orders, are required to be
examined in terms of the procedural requirement of
the provisions and the law laid down. 20. It is trite
law that the non-compliance of the established
procedure as envisaged under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is
an incurable defect. In the present case the police
having registered the FIR for the offence under
Section 188 IPC, being explicitly hit by the aforesaid
provision, has rendered the proceedings void-ab-
initio.”
17. It is apt to notice that investigations in some of these
cases are still underway while other matters have been sent
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041913
CRM-M No.16863 of 2025 9
for trial. A large number of these cases are clogging the
judicial system, which is already under strain due to huge
backlog. It would be expedient and in the interest of justice
if the cases, which have been registered under Section 188
IPC, by the police and not by the authorized officer, are
quashed by this Court……”
7. Further a perusal of the record and the allegations
contained in the FIR does no indicate that prima facie offence under the
provisions of Section 505(2) IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005, are made out against the petitioners.
8. Additionally, upon careful consideration and in light of the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-PIL-29-2021
and other connected cases, where similar FIRs registered during the
COVID-19 pandemic were quashed, this Court finds that the same
reasoning applies to the present case, as well.
9. Accordingly, FIR No.299 dated 08.09.2020, registered
under Sections 188, 269, 505(2) IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005, at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar
(Rural), and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed, qua the petitioners.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
27.03.2025
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 05-04-2025 13:52:39 :::
[ad_1]
Source link