Delhi High Court
Mohd Anwar & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi on 17 July, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 21st April, 2025
Pronounced on: 17th July, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 196/2021, CRL.M.A. 996/2021
1. MOHD. ANWAR
S/O - Saeed Ahmed
Residing at: Vill-Jogipura, Distt Saharanpur, U.P.,
2. AMIR HASAN
S/O - Mohd Kasin
Currently Residing at: 3175, Gali Pahari,
Fatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Chandani Mahal, Central Delhi
3. MOHD. AFTAB
S/O - Hazi Mohd Usman
Currently Residing at: 3204, Gali Pahari,
Fatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Chandani Mahal, Central Delhi
4. MOHD. SALMAN
S/O - Lt Mohd Rafiq
Currently Residing at: 3205, Gali Pahari,
Fatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Chandani Mahal, Central Delhi
5. SAFIQUIDDIN
S/O - Lt Kamruddin
Currently Residing at: 3206, Fatak Teliyan,
Turkman Gate, Delhi, Chandani Mahal, Central Delhi .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla & Ms.Mandakini
Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 1 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 1181/2021, CRL.M.A. 6045/2021
1. MOHD. TAYYAB
S/O - Mohd Saleem @ Salim
Residing At: Vill-Jaldehda, PS Behat, Distt
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh
2. MOAZIM RIYASAT
S/O - Rishala @ Risala
Currently Residing at: Vill-Sultan Pur
Hatana, PS Baghpat, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh
3. SADAR IRFAN
S/O - Abdul Salam
Currently residing at: 1813, Sui Walan Darya
Ganj Delhi, Chandani Mahal, Central Delhi
4. MUKTARA @ MUKHTAR ALI
S/O - Azmar Ali @ Asgar Ali
Currently Residing at: (R/O) 1835 Suiwalqan
Daryaganj Delhi, Chandani Mahal, Central Delhi .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 2 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 1182/2021 & CRL.M.A. 6047/2021
1. MOHD TAHIR HUSSAIN
S/O - MOHD IMAMUDDIN
RESIDING AT: 1745, KUCHA DKHANI RAI, PATAUDI
HOUSE, DARYA GANJ DELHI, CHANDNI MAHAL,
CENTRAL, DELHI, INDIA
2. SHAMIM AKHTAR
S/O - HASIB ASLAM
RESIDING AT: VILL - JIGHI PS MAHAGAMA, DISTT
GODDA, GODDA, JHARKHAND, INDIA
3. TAIJUMAL ISLAM
S/O ABDUL KALAM
RESIDING AT: CHABATTI, P.S. NORTH LAKHINPUR,
ASSAM- 787051
4. ATTAR REHMAN
S/O HAIBIBAR
RESIDING AT: BANKRA NEW AREA, AIRPORT NORTH
24, PORGANAS, KOLKATA-700051 .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 3 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 197/2021 & CRL.M.A. 998/2021, CRL.M.A. 3948/2022
1. SAYEED ULLA JAMA
S/O - SAMAD KHAN
H.N. 39 BADI MASJID
CHATTA LAL MIYANH
DARIYAGANJ, DELHI
2. MOAZIN
S/O - NAZEER AHMAD
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: ALIPUR, UTTAR PRADESH,
MEERUT
3. MOHAMMAD HARISH
S/O - MOHAMMAD RAI SUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: VILLAGE PHOOL BASTI, PS
RANIGANJ, ARARIA, BIHAR, INDIA
4. MOINUDDIN
S/O - QYAMUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: M.NO.36, CHATTA LAL MIAN,
DARIYAGANJ, NEW DELHI
5. GULZAR QURESHI
S/O - RIZUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 430 CHATALAL MIYA GALI
PAHAD WALI, DELHI. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 4 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 2100/2021, CRL.M.A. 14116/2021, CRL.M.A. 3961/2022
CRL.M.A. 3962/2022
1. MAJID MIYAN
S/O - MAQBOOL MIYAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 24A, SAEED COLONY,
BERASIYA ROAD, KAROND HOUSING BOARD, HUZUR,
BHOPAL
2. BASHEER ALI
S/O - FAYYAZ ALI
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 36, RAJIV AMAN COLONY,
BHOPAL, M.P.
3. MOHD. BILAL SHEIKH
S/O - MUHAMMAD THALU SHEIKH
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: SANEECHRI TORI, SAGAR,
M.P.
4. NIYAZUDDIN
S/O - KADER KHAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: RUSLI JAMA MASJID, HOUSE
NO. 91/92, BHOPAL
5. PARVEZ KHAN
S/O - YUNUS KHAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: NEAR J.P. ABASTHI,
KRISHNA
6. NOOR BANO
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 5 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
W/O - MAJID MIYAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 24-A, SAEED COLONY,
BERASIYA ROAD, KAROND HOUSING BOARD, HUZUR,
BHOPAL
7. NASHREEN KHAN
D/O - ABDUL VAHID KHAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: SANEECHRI TORI, SAGAR,
M.P.
8. SHAHIN BEE
W/O - BASHEER ALI
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 36, RAJIV AMAN COLONY,
BHOPAL, M.P.
9. SHABNAM BEE
W/O - NIYAZUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: RUSLI JAMA MASJID,
HOUSE NO. 91/92, BHOPAL
10. RUBINA BANO
W/O - PARVEZ KHAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: NEAR J.P. ABASTHI,
KRISHNA GANJ WARD, SAGAR, M.P. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 6 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
+ CRL.M.C. 315/2021, CRL.M.A. 1604/2021, CRL.M.A. 3907/2022
RIZWAN
S/O RIYAZUDDIN
1909 MOHALLA
QUBRISTAN TURKMAN
GATE DELHI-6 .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 316/2021 & CRL.M.A. 1607/2021
FEROZE SIDDIQUI
S/O SHAMIN AHMED
1951 GALI INLAZIR BEG
TURKMAN GATE, DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 7 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 382/2021, CRL.M.A.2011/2021 & 3920/2022
1. ABDUL WAHID
S/O -LATE ZAHID HASAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: GALI BAHAR, ALI D.GATE
2. MOHOMMED NOSAD
S/O - MOHOMMED SWADKEEN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 1230, RAKABGANJ, BEHIND
DELITE CINEMA, DELHI 110002 .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 384/2021 & CRL.M.A. 2014/2021
1. MOHD. AMANULLAH
S/O - MOHD AZIM
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: VILL - INDERPUR, PS
CHATTARPUR, DISTT - SUPAUL, SUPAUL, BIHAR, INDIA
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
2. SAHA ALAM SHEKH
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 8 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
S/O - KASIM SEKH
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: BANIBADA BELEKHALL
PASCHIM PARA NIKARIGHATA CANNING 24 PARGA
CANNING JOYRAMKHALI NORTH TWENTY FOUR
PARGANAS WEST BENGAL-743329
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
3. MOHD. YASHIN
S/O -MOHD. YUNUS
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 1688, SUI WALAN GALI TAKHAT
WALI DARYA GANJ, DELHI
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
4. SHEHZAD
S/O -ABDULLAH
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 2729, JHUGGI H.C. SEN MARG
CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI-110006
5. MOHD. SHAKIR
S/O -ABDUL HAMIL
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 400 CHATTA LAL MYAN,
DARYA GANJ, DELHI-110002
6. HUSSAIN ALI
S/O -JAHUR UDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: VILLAGE UDAKATI, P.S.
LAHORI GATE, SUB DIV-MORIGAON, DISTRICT MARIGAON,
ASSAM .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 9 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 385/2021 & CRL.M.A. 2023/2021, CRL.M.A. 3913/2022
1. MOTI UR REHMAN
S/O - MD NURUL
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: WARD NO 04, MAHICHANDA,
NEAR SCHOOL, MIRZAPUR KOTHI, SIMRAHA, ARARIA,
BIHAR-854318
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
2. MOHD MUKHTAR
S/O - MOHD DAUD
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 122, CHAMAN WALI
GALI,DARYA GANJ, CENTRAL DELHI, DELHI-110002
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
3. MOHD HUZAIFA
S/O - SAMI AHMED
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT:10, GALI CHAMAN WALI,
CHHATTA LAL MIAN, DARYA GANJ, CENTRALDELHI,
DELHI-110002. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 10 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 402/2021, CRL.M.A.2111/2021, 3910/2022
1. MOHD. MASOOD
S/O - MOHD IDRIS
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 4097/GALI I MAM
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
2. JUNAID
S/O - QAYAMUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 179-GALI MATA WALI
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
3. MOHD. ASIF
S/O - WAHABUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 498 GALI BAHAR WALI
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
4. AMINUDDIN
S/O - HAQIMUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 515 CHATTA LAL MIAN
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
5. MOHD. ARIF
S/O - MOHD YUNUS
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 192 CHATTALAL MIYAN
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
6. MOHD. TAHIR
S/O - MOHD HARUN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 525 CHATTA LAL MIYAN
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
7. FAHIMUDDIN
S/O - SHARIFUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: 494-GALI BALTAR WALI
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 11 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
NATIONALITY - INDIAN
8. AHMED CHAUHAN
S/O ALTAB CHAUHAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: H.NO.105, JAAN MOHAMMAD
APPT., AKSHA MASJID, FAIRDEAL ROAD JOGESWARI,
WEST MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
NATIONALITY-INDIAN
9. SEIKH AZHAR
S/O SEIKH ALTAF
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: SEIKH ASHIF SEKH ASHRAF
NEAR AAYSHA MASJID GULISTAN NAGAR, AMRAVATI,
MAHARASHTRA
NATIONALITY-INDIAN
10. SEIKH MUNTAZIR
S/O SEIKH NOORU
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: SEIKH NOORU WARD NO.3,
JAAM PURA KHEEL CHAUDHAR KARAJON, AMRAVATI,
CHANDUR BAZAR, MAHARASHTRA. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 422/2021, CRL.M.A. 2206/2021, CRL.M.A. 3900/2022
1. SAIFUDDIN
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 12 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
S/O - MOHD ZIKRIYA
R/O 654-CHIATTA CHUHIYA MEM, BAZAR CHITLI QABAR,
JAMA MASJID, DELHI-110006
2. SORAO HUSAIN
S/O - JAMALUDDIN
R/O NAI BASTI DHAR BHANGA DISTRICT UTTAR
DINAJPUR WEST BENGAL
3. MOHD. MUSTAFA
S/O MOHD. NOOR HASHAN
R/O AZAD NAGAR GALI NO. 10C, NEAR MASJID
NIZAMUDDIN, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 426/2021
1. SHEHZAD ALI
S/O - ASGHAR ALI
H NO. 21 MOHALLA BAZAR, KURAD PURKAZI,
MUZAFFARNAGAR
2. MOHD. WASIL
S/O - ABDUL RAHIM
VILLAGE MEHCHANDA, PO MIRZAPUR, KUTHI PS SIMRHA,
ARARI, BIHAR
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 13 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
3. JAHAN UDDIN AHMED
LT. ADBUL KADER SHEIKH
KAZIPARA PT-1 (AZAD NAGAR), CHAPAR, DHUBRI, ASSAM
4. MOHAMMAD NOUSHAD ALAM
S/O MOHD AHMED ALAM
R/O INDRA NAGAR, BORABANDA, HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Samender Singh,
P.S.Chandni Mahal.
+ CRL.M.C. 1662/2023 & CRL.M.A. 6335/2023
1. ASHIKILAHI @ ASHIK ILAHI
S/O- JALALUDDEN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: H.NO.77 SATHAMI
PS: LIAYANGNDI SIVGANA TAMIL NADU
2. JALALUDDIN KURAISI
S/O- HAJI ALI AHMAD
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: H.NO.3 13/82C
1st FLOOR TUSI NAGAR, INDERLOK, DELHI. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 14 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with ASI Om Prakash,
P.S.Sarai Rohilla.
+ CRL.M.C. 1707/2023 & CRL.M.A. 6515/2023
1. HUSSAIN
SON OF RAHMAD
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE KHATELOI,
TEHSIL-MASUDA SHYAM GARH,
AJMER, RAJASTHAN-305623.
2. MOHD. ASLAM @ MO. ASLAM KHAN
SON OF SHER KHAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE KHATELOI,
TEHSIL-MASUDA SHYAM GARH,
AJMER, RAJASTHAN-305623. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Gajal Chugh,
P.S.Krishna Nagar.
+ CRL.M.C. 1732/2023 & CRL.M.A. 6647/2023
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 15 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
1. MD. UMAR
S/O SHAIKH KHALED
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT KAREEM COLONY,
NEAR IDEAL SCHOOL, BASAVAKALYAN,
KARNATAKA- 585327
2. SHAHROZ ANWAR @ SEHARAJ ANWAR
S/O SAJID ANWAR
CURRENTLY RISIDING AT 23-25, PASH PARA STREET
BASAVAKALYAN, KARNATAKA- 585327
3. NOOR AHMED
SON OF YOUSUF
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 23/45,OLD WADAR GALI,
BASAVAKALYAN, KARNATAKA-585327
4. QADEER AHMAD
SON OF YOUSUF
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE AND TEHSIL
BASAVAKALYAN, KARNATAKA-585327
5. MOHAMMAD JAHANGIR
SON OF AMENUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 24/159 PASHAPURA,
BHANGI BOUDI, BASAVAKALYAN, KARNATAKA-585327
6. AZMATULLAH KHAN @ AZMATULLA KHAN
SON OF REHMAT ULLAH KHAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 18/179 NOOR KHAN AKHADA,
HUMNABAD, BIDAR, KARNATAKA-585330
7. AHMED SAYEED @ SYED AHMED SAYEED
SON OF SYED GHOUSE SAYEED
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 244/B/84, FATEH SHAH NAGAR
EDI BAZAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500023
8. MOHAMMAD ASHIF @ MD. ASIF
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 16 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
SON OF MD. RIYAZUDDIN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 5/40, MANNAEKHALLI
BIDAR, KARNATAKA- 500023. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Ashima Mandla and Ms.
Mandakini Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
through SHO, PS: Chandni Mahal .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Nitish Dhawan,
Mr. Rahul Kochar, Ms. Chavi
Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar,
Advocates with SI Gajal Chugh, P.S.:
Krishna Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The aforesaid Petitions have been filed under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of various FIRs under
Sections 188/269/270/271/120B IPC read with Section 3 of the Epidemic
Diseases Act, 1897 and Sections 51/58 of the Disaster Management Act,
2005, registered at P.S. Chandani Mahal, Sarai Rohilla, and Krishna Nagar
between 31.03.2020 and 02.04.2020.
2. The brief background of the aforesaid cases leading to the registration
of the aforesaid FIRs, may firstly be considered. Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic
self-reformatory movement for the followers of Islam, having its global
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 17 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Headquarters at the Nizamuddin Markaz, New Delhi, organizes annual
religious congregation. On the aforementioned occasion, the followers and
members of the Movement from across the globe, participate in this
religious congregation at the Markaz. The details of which are formalized a
year in advance, for the convenience of the foreign nationals to attend the
same. This year, the congregation was scheduled for early March, 2020, well
before the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic.
3. On 11.03.2020, The World Health Organization declared novel
Corona Virus (Covid-19) as a pandemic. On the same date, the Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India notified the suspension of visas till
15.04.2020 except for a few categories such as diplomatic, official, UN /
international organization, Project visa.
4. On 13.03.2020, the Delhi Government pursuant to the powers
conferred by the Delhi Epidemic Diseases, Covid-19, Regulations, 2020
under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, capped all sports gatherings
(including IPL) / conferences and seminars at 200 persons. However, there
was no mention in regard to prohibiting the religious congregations.
5. On 16.03.2020, the Delhi Government issued an Order in
supersession of its earlier Order dated 13.03.2020, expanding the
prohibitions to social, cultural, political, religious gatherings and
academic/sports/seminars events, which was restricted to 50 persons.
6. On 22.03.2020, “Janta Curfew” was declared by Respondent No. 2 /
Union of India, consequent to which a nationwide lockdown for a period of
21 days was declared to be in effect from 25.03.2020. There was four
continuous extension of this Nationwide Lockdown, till 31.05.2020.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 18 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
7. On 24.03.2020, ACP, Sub-Division- Darya Ganj issued an Order
under Section 144 Cr.P.C. thereby prohibiting Social / Cultural / Political /
Religious / Academic / Sports / Seminar / Conference in the wake of Covid-
19 pandemic.
8. On 31.03.2020, Crime Branch registered FIR No.63/2020 at PS Crime
Branch under Sections 188/269/270/271/120B IPC read with Section 3 of
the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Sections 51/58 of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005, against alleged organizers of Tablighi Jamaat. FIR
No. 63/2020 is stated to be limited to Indian Nationals and alleged
organizers of Jamaat congregation at Nizamuddin Markaz.
9. Additionally, the Respondents herein registered the Impugned FIRs at
PS: Chandani Mahal, Sarai Rohilla, Krishna Nagar under Sections
188/269/120B IPC, details of the same are as under:
MOHD. ANWAR & ORS.V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO.196 OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
PERSONS(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 9 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg91
@Pg93 OFFENC
E
FIR NO. 1. MOHD Crl.M.C. No. 1685/2020 Choti 23.07.2020
074/2020 dated ANWAR titled Thein Win &Ors. v Masjid, filed by ACP,
31.03.2020 u/s 2. AMIR HASAN State of NCT of Delhi & FatakTeliy Darya Ganj
188/269/270 3. MOHD. Ors. an
@Pg 60 AFTAB
4. MOHD. Disposed vide order dated
SALMAN 24.08.2020
5. SAFIQUIDDI
NSHEHZAD ALI & ANR.V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 426 OF 2021
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 19 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSEDPERSONS FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg84
@Pg88 OFFENC
E
FIR No. 1. SHEHZAD Crl.M.C. No. 1695/2020 Kikar 24.07.2020
075/2020 dated ALI titled Muhammad Nurdin Wali filed by ACP,
31.03.2020 u/s 2. MOH. WASIL & Ors. v State of NCT of Masjid, Darya Ganj
188/269/270/12 3. JAHAN Delhi & Ors. Kucha
0B @Pg 55 UDDIN Challan,
AHMED Disposed vide order dated Daryaganj
4. MOHAMMAD 25.08.2020
NOUSHAD
ALAMSAIFUDDIN & ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 422 OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
PERSONS(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg86
@Pg81 OFFENC
E
FIR No. 1. SAIFUDDIN Crl.M.C. No. 1668/2020 Masjid 24.07.2020
076/2020 dated 2. SORAO titled Salman Alfarisi Sayyed filed by ACP,
31.03.2020 u/s HUSAIN Muzakkir & Ors. v. State Rafi Near Darya Ganj
188/269/270 3. MOHD. (NCT of Delhi) &Ors. Chitli
@Pg 54 MUSTAFA Qabar
Disposed vide order dated Delhi
21.08.2020SAYEED ULLA JAMA & ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 197 OF
2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
PERSONS(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 9 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg89
@Pg91 OFFENC
ECRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 20 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
FIR No. 1. SAYEED Crl.M.C. No. 1633/2020 Badi 24.07.2020
077/2020 dated ULLA JAMA titled Mirwais Zama& Masjid filed by ACP,
31.03.2020 u/s 2. MOAZIN Ors. v State of NCT of FaarelRaa Darya Ganj
188/269/270 3. MOHAMMAD Delhi & Ors ndh,
@Pg 58 HARISH Chatalal
4. MOINUDDIN Disposed vide order dated Miya,
5. GULZAR 11.08.2020 Chandni
QURESHI MahalMOHD. AMANULLAH & ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 384
OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSEDPERSONS FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg87
@Pg91 OFFENC
E
FIR No. 1. MOHD. Crl. M.C.(Main) No. Molvi 26.07.2020
082/2020 dated AMANULLA 1713/2020 titled Md. Adbul filed by ACP,
01.04.2020 u/s H Masud Choudhury & Ors. Gani Darya Ganj
188/269/270/12 2. SAHA ALAM v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Masjid,
0B @Pg 53 SHEKH Ors. 1669, Gali
3. MOHD. Tekhat
YASHIN Disposed vide order dated Wali,
4. SHEHZAD 21.08.2020 Suiwalan,
5. MOHD. Chandni
SHAKIR Mahal
6. HUSSAIN ALI
MOTI UR REHMAN& ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 385 OF
2021
FIR NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
PERSONS(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg85
@Pg87 OFFENC
E
FIR No. 1. MOTI UR Crl. M.C.(Main) No. Masjid 24.06.2020
084/2020 REHMAN 1669/2020 titled Wawan Chaman filed by ACP,
DATED 2. MOHD Wahidin Syapii& Ors. v Wali, 122 Darya Ganj
01.04.2020 u/s MUKHTAR State of NCT of Delhi & Chatta Lal
188/269/270 3. MOHD Ors.Disposed vide order Miyan,
@Pg 54 HUZAIFA dated 28.08.2020 DaryaganjCRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 21 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
MOHD. MASOOD & ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 402 OF
2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
PERSONS(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC
@Pg109 OFFENC @Pg105
E
FIR No. 1. MOHD. Crl. M.C.(Main) No. Masjid 10.07.2020
085/2020 dated MASOOD 1680/2020 titled Chand filed by ACP,
01.04.2020 u/s 2. JUNAID TanshanloIusup& Ors. v Wali, Darya Ganj
188/269/270 3. MOHD. ASIF State of NCT of Delhi & Chatta Lal
@Pg 52 4. AMINUDDIN Ors. Miyan,
5. MOHD. ARIF Daryaganj,
6. MOHD. Disposed vide order dated Delhi
TAHIR 24.08.2020
7. FAHIMUDDI
N
8. AHMED
CHAUHAN
9. SEIKH
AZHAR
10. SEIKH
MUNTAZIRABDUL WAHID & ANR. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO.382 OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF PREVIOUS CASE NO. ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED @Pg81 D COMPLAIN
PERSONS(INDIAN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) ON OF CrPC @Pg79
@Pg 5 OFFENC
E
FIR No. 1. ABDUL Crl. M.C.(Main) No. H.No. 468 24.07.2020
086/2020 dated WAHID 1711/2020 titled Zaw Min G.F. Gali filed by ACP,
01.04.2020 u/s 2. MOHOMMED &Ors. v State of NCT of Bahar Darya Ganj
188/269/270 NOSAD Delhi &Ors. Wali
@Pg 52 Chatta Lal
Disposed vide order dated Miya,
11.08.2020 Chandni
Mahal,
DelhiRIZWAN V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 315 OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAINCRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 22 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
PERSON(S) (INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg77
OFFENC
@Pg79 E
FIR No. 1. RIZWAN Crl.M.C. No. 1681/2020 House No. 23.07.2020
089/2020 dated titled 1909, Gali filed by ACP,
02.04.2020 u/s TurgunbaevaZhyragalkan Wazir Darya Ganj
188/269/270/12 & Ors. v. State (NCT of Beig,
0B @Pg 52 Delhi) & Ors. Turkan
Gate,
Disposed vide order dated Delhi
24.08.2020FIROZE SIDDIQUI.V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 316 OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
PERSON(S)(INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5 NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg77
OFFENC
@Pg78 E
FIR No. 2. FEROZE Crl.M.C. No. 1667/2020 House No. 24.07.2020
090/2020 dated SIDDIQUI titled Khiva Anwar& Ors. 1851, filed by ACP,
02.04.2020 u/s v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Mohalla Darya Ganj
188/269/270/12 Ors Qabristan
0B @Pg 52 Turkman
Disposed vide order dated Gate,
24.08.2020 DelhiMOHD. TAYYAB& ORS.V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 1181OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAINCRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 23 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
PERSON(S) (INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5- NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg96-
6 @Pg.101-105 OFFENC 100
E
FIR No. 1. MOHD. Crl.M.C. No. 1636/2020 Pathan 24.07.2020
080/2020 dated TAYYAB titled AdangSupriatana& Wali filed by ACP,
01.04.2020 u/s 2. MOAZIM Ors. v. State (NCT of Masjid Darya Ganj
188/269/270/12 RIYASAT Delhi) & Ors Suiwalan,
0B @Pg 61 3. SADAR Daryaganj
IRFAN Disposed vide order dated
4. MUKTARA 24.08.2020
TAHIR HUSSAIN & ORS.V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 1182 OF
2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF QUASHING PETITION ALLEGE DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED FILED PREVIOUSLY D COMPLAIN
PERSON(S) (INDIAN BY FOREIGN LOCATI T U/S 195
NATIONALS) @Pg 5- NATIONALS ON OF CrPC @Pg94-
6 @Pg.101-105 OFFENC 97 E FIR No. 1. MOHD. Crl.M.C. No. 1679/2020 Masjid 23.07.2020 079/2020 dated TAHIR titled Hendrison Ginting Chote filed by ACP, 01.04.2020 u/s HUSSAIN & Ors. v. State (NCT of Wali 1745, Darya Ganj 188/269/270/12 2. SHAMIM Delhi) & Ors Kucha 0B @Pg 61-67 AKHTAR Dakhani 3. TAIJUMAL Disposed vide order dated Rai, ISLAM 24.08.2020 Pataudi 4. ATTAR House, REHMAN Darya Ganj
MAJID MIYAN & ORS.V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 2100 OF 2021
DETAILS OF NAME OF ALLEGED LOCATION OF DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED OFFENCE COMPLAINT U/S 195
PERSON(S) (INDIAN CrPC @Pg122-126
NATIONALS) @Pg 7
FIR No. 1. MAJID Masjid Ek Minar Wali, 23.07.2020 filed by
083/2020 dated MIYAN Haweli Kalu Chitli Qabar, ACP, Darya Ganj
01.04.2020 u/s 2. BASHEER Darya Danj
188/269/270/12 ALI
0B @Pg 77-84 3. MOHD.
BILAL
SHEIKH
4. NIYAUDDIN
5. PARVEEN
KHAN
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 24 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
6. NOOR BANO
7. NASHREEN
KHAN
8. SHAHIN BEE
9. SHABNAM
BEE
10. RUBINA RAO
HUSSAIN V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 1707 OF 2023
DETAILS OF NAME OF ALLEGED LOCATION OF DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED OFFENCE COMPLAINT U/S 195
PERSON(S) (INDIAN CrPC
NATIONALS) @Pg 5-
6
FIR No. 1. Hussain Sunheri Masjid, Old None
0142/2020 2. Mohd. Aslam Seelampur
dated
02.04.2020 u/s
188/269/270/12
0B, S. 3
Epidemic
Diseases Act,
Section 51 of
Disaster
Management
Act@Pg66-74
MD. UMARV. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 1732 OF 2023
DETAILS OF NAME OF ALLEGED LOCATION OF DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED OFFENCE COMPLAINT U/S 195
PERSON(S) (INDIAN CrPC@113
NATIONALS) @Pg 5-
6
FIR No. 1. Md. Umar Sunheri Masjid, Old Undated by ACP,
0141/2020 2. Shahroz Anwar Seelampur Gandhi Nagar
dated 3. Noor Ahmed
01.04.2020 u/s 4. Qadeer Ahmad
188/269/270/12 5. Mohd. Jahangir
0B, S. 3 6. Azmatullah
Epidemic Khan
Diseases Act, 7. Ahmed Sayeed
Section 51 of 8. Mohd. Ashif
Disaster
Management
Act@Pg69-74
ASHIKILAHI V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) CRL.MISC. (MAIN) NO. 1662 OF 2023
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 25 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
DETAILS OF NAME OF ALLEGED LOCATION OF DATE OF
FIR ACCUSED OFFENCE COMPLAINT U/S 195
PERSON(S) (INDIAN CrPC@155-157
NATIONALS) @Pg 6-
7 FIR No. 1. Ashikilahi Makki Masjid, Inderlok 26.07.2020 by ACP, 0101/2020 2. Jalaluddin Sarai Rohilla dated Kuraisi 01.04.2020 u/s 188/269/270/12 0B, S. 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, Section 51 of Disaster Management Act@Pg74-80
10. The Petitioners have asserted that thereafter, on 02.04.2020, Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India, unilaterally and arbitrarily
blacklisted 960 Foreign Nationals, present in the country on tourism visa for
alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities and further directed DGPs
of all concerned States / UTs and CP, Delhi Police to take necessary legal
action against all foreigners under the relevant sections of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Consequently, a number
of FIRs across the country in states such as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,
Bihar, Haryana, etc. apart from Delhi. The Foreign Nationals were served
with Notices under Sections 160 and 41a Cr.P.C.
11. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India in continuation
of the Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I(A) dated 24.03.2020, 25.03.2020 and
27.05.2020 giving Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), issued Addendum
dated 02.04.2020 in order to facilitate the deportation of the asymptomatic
foreign nationals of stranded in India, in chartered flights to be arranged by
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 26 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
concerned Foreign Government in consultation with the Ministry of Civil
Aviation, owing to the outbreak of Covid-19 and the subsequent lockdowns
imposed by the Centre and the State Governments.
12. On 09.05.2020, Office of Divisional Commissioner, Department of
Revenue, Government of NCT of Delhi ordered for the release of the Indian
Nationals related to the Markaz and other Masjids from institutional
quarantine upon testing negative, while adhering to the Standard Operating
Procedure of the various States and UTs. Between 26.05.2020 and
28.05.2020, Crime Branch filed 48 Chargesheets, 11 supplementary
Chargesheets against 955 foreign nationals in connection with Tablighi
Jamaat under Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 3 of the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act,
2005 and Sections 188/269/270/271 of IPC, before the learned CMM,
South-East District, Saket Courts.
13. The cognizance on the Chargesheets qua 955 foreign nationals in FIR
No.63/2020 was taken on 06.07.2020. From July, 2020 to August 2020,
around 193 foreign nationals named in 28 additional FIRs including the
impugned FIRs registered PS: Chandni Mahal, approached the Court for
quashing of the FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as amounting to a second
FIR and thus, barred by doctrine of double jeopardy enshrined under Article
20 of the Constitution of India and Section 300A of Cr.P.C. All the FIRs
were transferred from the Court of concerned Magistrate (having territorial
jurisdiction) to the Court of learned CMM, South-East District, Saket
Courts, who was presiding over the FIR No. 63/2020 registered at P.S.:
Crime Branch.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 27 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
14. It is submitted that on 04.09.2020, learned CMM, South-East District,
Saket Courts, erroneously took cognizance qua Indian Nationals in the
Impugned FIRs, though no cognizance has been taken qua Foreign Nationals
named in the impugned chargesheet arising from the impugned FIRs.
15. This Court in CRL.M.C.1685/2020 titled as Thein Win & Ors. vs.
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., vide order dated 24.08.2020 transferred the
aforesaid FIRs to learned CMM, South-East District, Saket Courts and on
the same date learned CMM, vide separate orders, discharged eight foreign
nationals under Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Sections 51/58
Disaster Management Act, 2005, Sections 188/269/270/271 IPC and Section
14(b) Foreigners Act, 1946.
16. Furthermore, Revision was filed by the State under Section 397 read
with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against discharge, but the same was dismissed by
learned ASJ, Saket Courts on 19.11.2020. On 15.12.2020, 36 foreign
nationals were acquitted under all Sections in FIR No.63/2020.
17. The quashing of aforesaid FIRs is sought on the grounds that
allegations levelled against Indian Nationals in the aforesaid FIRs, are prima
facie embellishments and exaggerations which stare in the face of the record
and is the abuse to the process of criminal law. The petitioners herein are
being compelled to repeatedly face corresponding charges, thereby
infringing upon their personal liberty.
18. It is further contended that allegations made against the petitioners,
are that they were allegedly housed at Masjid Ek Minar, Haveli Kallu
Khawas, Chitli Qabar, Delhi for some time and remained housed till
intervention by the Police officials on 01.04.2020. It is asserted that theCRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 28 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs, are bereft of legality as there are
no specific allegations or evidence qua Petitioners for hosting or
participating a social/cultural/religious gathering which was essentially
barred under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
19. It is further contended that on account of unforeseen turn of events,
the MHA banned international flights w.e.f. 22.03.2020. Additionally, with
escalation of restrictions, MHA had directed for a nation-wide Janta curfew
to be observed on 22.03.2020, and subsequently, Section 144 Cr.P.C. was
imposed in New Delhi on 24.03.2020. Because of these unprecedented turn
of events, the Petitioners herein were stranded inside the Masjid during the
course of the lockdown.
20. It is asserted that the allegations have been manufactured only to
bring them within the four corners of criminal offence, even though they are
patently false and unsubstantiated. It is submitted that total ban on
movement i.e. Janta Curfew was imposed on 22.03.2020 while Section 144
was imposed on 24.03.2020 and complete nation-wide Lockdown was
directed w.e.f. 25.03.2020, rendering the Petitioners remediless who had no
recourse but to continue staying inside the Masjid, until taken into
Institutional quarantine. The Petitioners, therefore, cannot be charged under
Section 188 IPC for merely residing in a Masjid and the charges are liable to
be quashed.
21. Reliance has been placed on Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs. State, 2002 SCC
OnLine Del 277, wherein this Court laid down the conditions to be proved
for the offence under Section 188 IPC.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 29 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
22. It is further contended that Order dated 24.03.2020 under Section 144
Cr.P.C. was never promulgated within the meaning of Section 188 IPC nor
were the Petitioners aware about the same. The IPC does not define the
particular mode of promulgation, but the term came up for consideration in
the case of State vs. Tugla, 1955 SCC OnLine All 282, wherein Allahabad
High Court has explained the meaning of promulgation, which essentially is
the process by which an Order is made known to the persons sought to be
made bound. Private communication thereof, shall not amount to
promulgation.
23. Furthermore, there is an embargo under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of
Cr.P.C. prohibiting the Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offence
under Section 190(1) of Cr.P.C., in absence of written Complaint of the
public servant to the Magistrate concerned. The provisions of Cr.P.C.
consciously differentiated between a Complaint and a Police Report and the
Complaint cannot include a Police Report, even by its very definition.
24. The offence under Section 188 IPC is a cognizable offence as
provided for in First Schedule of the Code. However, for taking cognizance
of an offence under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint of the Public
Servant whose order has been contravened, is mandatory. The Court on
examination of Complainant and witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
may conduct an inquiry or direct investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
and thereafter, may either issue process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. or
dismiss the Complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The prosecution for the
offence under Section 188 IPC cannot be initiated on the basis of
Chargesheet filed by the Police.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 30 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
25. Reference has been made to C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, 2010(9) SCC 567, wherein, it has been held that cognizance of the
offence under Section 188 IPC, can be taken only as per Section 195 Cr.P.C.
26. Reliance has also been placed on Raj Singh vs. State, (1998) 2 SCC
391 and Jeevanandham vs. State of Madras, CRL. OP (MD)No. 1356/2018,
wherein guidelines have been issued for dealing with the offences under
Section 188 IPC. The Respondent allegedly submitted the Compliant in
writing under Section 195 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2020 before learned CMM,
South-East District, Saket Courts. The Chargesheet was therefore, as void ab
initio and the Respondent cannot belatedly file a Complaint and take benefit
thereof. The Charges under Section 188 IPC are therefore, liable to be
quashed.
27. In respect of Section 269 IPC, it is submitted that the bare reading of
the allegations in the Chargesheets along with Sections as defined in the
IPC, no offence under this Section has been made out against the Petitioners.
It has in fact, led to prejudice and stigmatization of the aforesaid persons,
thereby violating their Right to Dignity embodied under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It is asserted that the charges under Section 269 IPC
are not made out. For any Petitioner to be allegedly deemed as negligent in
spreading the infection, the knowledge of being infected with the disease
would be an imperative condition. In the prevailing circumstances, it is not
the case of prosecution that the persons who tested positive had knowledge
and were deliberately spreading the alleged infection.
28. It is submitted that present cases are classic example wherein
unsubstantiated allegations have been embellished and exaggerated with
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 31 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
falsehood. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswany & Ors. (1997)
2 SCC 699, it has been held that the inherent power of quashing under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the wholesome power, which entitled the High Court
to quash proceedings if the ends of justice so require. Reliance has also been
placed on State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,1992 AIR SC
604 and State of Bihar and Anr. vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors., 1980 1 SCC
554.
29. It is further submitted that merely because the cognizance has been
taken on Chargesheets is no bar for quashing of the FIRs, as observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Ors. vs.
State of Government of NCT, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2447 and in Salvaraj A.
vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59. Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad, in the case of Nadeem & Ors. vs. State of U.P., Crl. Msc. No.
9256/2020 has quashed the similar FIRs registered under Sections 188, 269,
270, 271 IPC an Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 7 of
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Section 51 of Disaster Management
Act, 2005 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. The
High Court of Karnataka in the case of Farhan Hussain vs. State by Thilak
Park P.S. Tumkur City State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.
2376/2020 quashed the FIR under similar Sections.
30. It is therefore, submitted that the FIRs and consequent proceedings
emanating therefrom may be quashed.
31. Status report has been filed by the State wherein the contents of the
Chargesheets have been reiterated and it is submitted that because of
enforcement of Lockdown and immediate shifting of people to quarantine
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 32 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
centre, proper investigations got left out. It became difficult to prove exactly
since how many days these outside people were living in the area of PS
Chandni Mahal, Delhi. However, congregation of 10 people at a single place
violated the Notification.
32. In the subsequent Status Report of the State, it was submitted that
after investigations, prima facie offences were made out and Chargesheets
were filed against the Members of Tablighi Jamaat, who were found in
Hazrat Nizamuddin Markaz between 26.03.2020 and 31.03.2020 and were
then found residing in Masjid Chand Wali, Chandni Mahal, Old Delhi on
01.04.2020.
33. The Petitioners in the Rejoinder have reiterated the assertions as made
in their Petitions.
34. Submissions heard and record perused.
35. All the aforesaid FIRs have been registered under Sections
188/269/270/120B IPC. The case of the prosecution may be considered to
ascertain whether the offence under the aforesaid Sections of IPC is made
out.
36. Before embarking on the contentions raised in the aforesaid petitions,
it is pertinent to note that not only has the cognizance been taken by the
learned CMM, but it has also been held that prima facie Charges under the
aforesaid Sections have been made out and the Charges were, accordingly
directed to be framed. This Order of Charge has been upheld by the learned
ASJ.
I. Whether Quashing maintainable after Cognizance is taken on the
Chargesheet and Charges directed to be framed –
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 33 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
37. The first question which thus arises is whether the filing of the
Chargesheets and framing of Charges would be an impediment before this
Court to the maintainability of the Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
38. This aspect was considered by the Apex Court in Shaileshbhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel & Another vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. Criminal Appeal
No. 1884/2013 (decided on 28.08.2024) where it was categorically held that
if upon a reading of the contents of the FIR and the Chargesheet together,
the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
satisfied that no offence is disclosed and that the continuation of such
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, then the
FIR, even when the Chargesheet stands filed, may be quashed.
39. The reason for doing so emerges from the observations of the Apex
Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC
59, wherein it was held that the power to examine whether a prima facie
case is made out or not, still vests with the High Court even after the filing of
the filing of the Chargesheet.
40. Similar observations were made in the case of Mamta Shailesh
Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 136, Anand
Kumar Mohatta vs. State(NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, Abhishek vs.
State of M.P., (2023) 16 SCC 666, where the Apex Court has held that when
it comes to the power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process
of court or miscarriage of justice, there is no bar to exercising such power
even when the Chargesheet has already been filed. In such cases, where no
prima facie case is made out or where there are no specific allegations
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 34 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
against the accused, the continuation of proceedings would amount to a
travesty of justice.
41. From the aforesaid judgements, it emerges that the inherent power of
the High Court, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a
salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to be degenerated into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. For
proper realization of the object and purpose of the provisions which seek to
save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State
and its subjects, the width and contours of this salient jurisdiction, need to be
emphasized.
42. This power to quash a proceeding is a wholesome power which must
be exercised only if the High Court comes to the conclusion that allowing
the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the
Court or that the ends of justice require the proceedings to be quashed.
43. The necessity of exercising this power, more so in criminal cases, was
highlighted by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State
of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy 1977 SCC (Cri) 404 wherein it was
observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution,
the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests
and the like, would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the
interest of justice which are much higher than the ends of mere law as
justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the
Legislature.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 35 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
44. The circumstances in which the exercise of inherent power must be
exercised to quash the proceedings, were detailed in R.P. Kapur vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 as follows:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance, example want of sanction;
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do
not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
45. It was further explained that while dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no
legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with
the accusations made and a case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. While exercising
jurisdiction under Article 482 of Cr.P.C of the Code, the High Court would
not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of its accusation
would not be sustained; that is the function of the Trial Court.
46. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the Apex Court has laid down several
principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been observed as under:
“7….In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to theCRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 36 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil
and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to
be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a
lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which
the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would
justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the
interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the
ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling
necessity for making these observations is that without a
proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision
which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court
to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be
impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that
salient jurisdiction.”
47. The twin tests for exercising the inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C were either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
48. It is therefore, evident that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not
limited by the proceeding by the learned MM and the same can be exercised
by the High Court, if it is imperative to meet the interest of justice.
49. In view of aforesaid, mere filing of Chargesheets is no impediment
for this Court to consider the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIRs.
50. Therefore, it is held that the present petitions for quashing of
Charge sheets are maintainable.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 37 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
II. Ingredients of S.188 IPC –
51. Section 188 IPC deals with disobedience of orders dully promulgated
by public servants. In the case of Bhoop Singh Tyagi (supra), this Court has
laid down the ingredients mandatorily required by the prosecution to prove
that the offence under Section 188 IPC have been made out. These are (i)
there must be an order promulgated by a public servant; (ii) such public
servant was lawfully empowered to promulgate such Order; (iii) accused
necessarily had the knowledge of such order directing them to abstain from
an act or to take certain Order with certain property in their possession or
under their management; (iv) The accused have disobeyed the order having
its knowledge; and (v) such disobedience caused or tended to cause
obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it to any person lawfully
employed or danger to human life, health and safety.
52. Before considering the facts, it may be considered if the Complaint
was filed by the Competent Authority for taking cognizance of the offence
under S.188 IPC.
(a) Whether cognizance for offence under S.188 IPC not
sustainable in the Absence of Complaint by Competent Authority –
53. The first contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that the
entire investigations have been undertaken by the Police without there being
any Complaint and therefore, cognizance taken by learned MM for the
offence under Section 188 IPC is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
54. For the charge under Section 188 IPC, prosecution has alleged
violation of order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. dated 24.03.2020 promulgated
by ACPs of Darya Ganj, Sarai Rohilla and Krishna Nagar.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 38 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
55. Sections 195 Cr.P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance of
any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, except on the
Complaint in writing to the public servant concerned.
56. Section 195 Cr.P.C. read as under :
“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-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), orexcept on the complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate;”
57. Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking cognizance
of the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or its abetment or attempt
to commit the same, unless the written Complaint by the public servant, is
made to the Court. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the
general rule contained in Section 190 Cr.P.C. that any person can set a law
in motion by making a Complaint. Other provisions like Section 196 and
198 Cr.P.C. do not lay down any rule or procedure; rather, they only create a
bar that unless some requirements are complied with, the Court shall not
take cognizance of an offence described in those Sections.
58. The gist is whether the facts disclosed primarily and essentially an
offence under S.188 IPC for which a Complaint to the Court is mandatorily
required to be made by the public servant.
59. In the case of Basir-ul-Haq & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR
1953 SC 293 and Durgacharan Naik & Ors. vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1966
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 39 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
SC 1775, it was held that the provisions of the requirements of making a
Complaint to the Court under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not obliterated merely
because other Sections of IPC are included in the Chargesheet.
60. In M. S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 168, it
was held that provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no Court
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence mentioned therein, unless
there is a Complaint in writing as required under the Section. Simiilar,
observations have been made in the case of Sachidanand Singh & Anr. vs.
State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493. In the case of Daulat Ram vs.
State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206, it was observed that where the
cognizance has been assumed wrongly by the Court without the Complaint
in writing of the public servant, the trial was thus without jurisdiction ab
initio and no conviction can be maintained.
61. All the aforesaid judgments were considered in detail in the case of C.
Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567, wherein it
was concluded that the Complaint by the public servant must be in writing
made to the Court and its non-compliance would vitiate the cognizance and
all the consequential orders being void ab initio and without jurisdiction.
62. In the present case, the record shows that a Complaint by the
competent public officer had been made to the Court along with the
Chargesheet and the cognizance has been taken on the basis of that
Complaint. It cannot be said that there was no compliance of Section 195
Cr.P.C. in the present cases.
63. In this context, it is pertinent to observe that the offence under Section
188 IPC is a cognizable bailable offence. Cognizable offences are those
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 40 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
where the Police has the power to make an arrest without the warrants and to
commence the investigations without prior permission of the Court. This
implies that whenever there is any information of prima facie commission of
offence under Section 188 IPC, the Police can initiate investigations. In fact,
Section 154 Cr.P.C. makes it mandatory for the Police to register the FIR
and conduct the investigations.
64. Furthermore, Section 188 IPC being a cognizable offence under IPC,
the Police is duty bound to conduct the investigations. No provision of IPC
either ousts the jurisdiction of the Police to conduct the investigations, nor
does it vitiates the investigation so undertaken by the Police.
65. The only embargo under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is that the Court shall
not take cognizance without there being a written Complaint filed in the
Court by the Competent Officer. In the present case, the Complaint has been
filed in the Court in accordance with Section 195 Cr.P.C, on which
cognizance was taken by the learned MM.
66. The contention of the Petitioner that the cognizance of the offence
under Section 188 IPC has been taken contrary to Section 195 Cr.P.C. is
thus not tenable.
(b)Necessity of Promulgation of Notification under S.188 IPC –
67. The second contention of the petitioners is that Order dated
24.03.2020 under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was never promulgated as mandatory
under Section 188 IPC and the Petitioners were not aware about this
notification. Therefore, no offence under Section 188 IPC can be set to have
been committed. To consider this we may peruse the relevant provision,
which is given as under:
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 41 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
“188. Offence committed outside India.
– When an offence is committed outside India –
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or
elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or
aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect
of such offence as if it had been committed at any place
within India at which he may be found :
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the
preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be
inquired into or tried in India except with the previous
sanction of the Central Government.”
68. Bare reading of Section 188 IPC makes it abundantly evident that the
Notification of the public servant must be in the actual knowledge of the
person required him to do or abstain from doing some act. Acquiring or
gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite. Any proof of general
Notification promulgated by a public servant, would not satisfy the
requirement.
69. The meaning of word “promulgation” came up for consideration
before Allahabad High Court in the case of State v. Tugla, 1955 SCC
OnLine All 282, wherein, it was observed that word „promulgate‟ means “to
make known by public declaration, to publish; to disseminate or to
proclaim”. In essence the word connotes two ideas: (1) making known of an
order and (2) the means by which the order is made known must be by
something done openly and in public. Private information will not be
“promulgation”. But the law does not prescribe any particular mode in
which an order is made known openly and publicly. It may be by beat ofCRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 42 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
drum; it may be by publication in Gazette; it may be by reading out the
Order openly in public.
70. Any Order announced in open Court shall be deemed to have been
promulgated, but as the Court room is a place where the litigants are
expected to go and the public at large is not expected to be present though
they have right to go there if they so wish, the open declaration of the Order
in Court will be deemed to be a Notice not to the public at large, but to the
parties of the case in which the Order is passed.
71. In the present case, it is not the case of the Respondents that this
Order was served on the Petitioners by whatever means / modes or was
affixed on the premises or was gazetted on the relevant date. The contention
of the State is that the requisite knowledge must be attributed to the
Petitioners, because the Order was published in some Newspapers, TV
Channels and social websites, etc. However, this fact does not meet the
requirement of promulgation since there is no averment that the newspapers
/ handbills were received by the Petitioner.
72. As has already been stated, it cannot be overlooked that with the
imposition of the lockdown w.e.f. 25.03.2020, the entire world came to
stand still and no person whatsoever was permitted to step out of the house.
This Order is of 24.03.2020 and complete Lockdown was imposed on
25.03.2020, whereby the distribution of newspapers, handbills, etc. was also
prevented. There is no averment whatsoever to show that any information
was actually conveyed to the Petitioners.
73. Likewise, had there been any evidence of the Notification being
published in the public media, there may have been a presumption of
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 43 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
knowledge to the persons residing in the house, but there is no evidence to
this effect as well.
74. Aside from making bald assertions that the Notification of concerned
ACP had been duly promulgated, there is no cogent evidence to this effect in
the entire Chargesheet. Therefore, there is no evidence whatever to show
that this Notification under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was promulgated and was
within the knowledge of the Petitioners. The essential ingredient of
promulgation to constitute an offence under Section 188 IPC, has
therefore, not even have been established. Even if, entire prosecution case
is admitted no offence is made out under Section 188 IPC.
(c) Whether any Offence under S.188 IPC was committed –
75. The third aspect for consideration is whether there was indeed
violation of the Notification of the ACP, as has been alleged by the
Prosecution.
76. It is pertinent to refer to the Notification under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
dated 24.03.2020, wherein it was notified that prohibitory Orders under
Section 144 Cr.P.C. for maintaining Health, Public Safety and Public Order
in Delhi, was issued.
77. The aforesaid Notification itself stated that based on Declaration by
World Health Organization on 11.03.2020 of the outbreak of COVID-19 as
a global pandemic and Notifications issued by the Government of India,
Government of NCT of Delhi apprehended that there is likelihood of fast
and widespread community transmission of COVID-19 and there was
serious threat to human life, health and safety, the precautionary notification
had been issued. The onset of COVID-19 pandemic commenced from
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 44 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
11.03.2020, as is evident from the declaration of WHO, since then various
Notifications were being issued imposing partial lockdown for limited
period of time, but was getting extended till the imposition of complete
Lockdown on 25.03.2020.
78. Tablighi Jamaat is an Islamic self-reformatory movement, for the
followers of Islam, having its global Headquarters at the Nizamuddin
Markaz, New Delhi. The followers and members of the movement across
the globe participate in this religious congregation at the Markaz, the details
of which are formalized a year in advance, for the convenience of the
foreign nationals for attending the same. The congregation was scheduled
for early March, 2020, well before the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic.
The Petitioners herein and the foreign nationals, who have been separately
Chargesheeted in FIR No.0063/2020 and all congregated in the Markaz,
Nizamuddin.
79. Firstly and foremost, there is nothing on record to show that they had
congregated after the promulgation of the Notification under Section 144
Cr.P.C. These Petitioners were already present in the Markaz and after the
imposition of the complete lockdown, there was no way possible for them to
have dispersed; rather their stepping out of the houses would have been
violation of the complete lockdown and also of the potential of spreading of
commutable disease of COVID-19. In fact, in these peculiar circumstances,
the question of human rights arose whereby their movement was curtailed
on account of the pandemic and they were compelled to remain in the
Markaz, where they had already congregated since prior to the Declaration
of Lockdown. The congregation had not been subsequent to the Notification
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 45 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
under Section 144 Cr.P.C. They were helpless people, who got confined on
account of lockdown.
80. Further, vide the Notification, Prohibition was imposed on the
following acts :
(i) Assembly of any kind for demonstrations, processions, protests,
etc.;
(ii) Any gathering social / cultural/ political/religious/sports/seminar/
conference;
(iii) Organization of weekly markets (except for vegetables, fruits, and
essential commodities), concerts, exhibitions etc.;
(iv) Guided group tours conducted by various tour operators; and
(v) Any individual suspected/ confirmed with COVID-19 shall take
measure for prevention / treatment, i.e. home quarantine, isolation
and cooperation to render assistance or comply with the
directions of the surveillance personnel.
81. It is also significant to note that merely because they were living in a
Markaz, did not amount to violation of any of the five activities, which were
prescribed by the Notification under Section 144 Cr.P.C. They had
assembled neither for any demonstration nor for any social, cultural,
political, religious gatherings, organising weekly markets, or group tours.
The Petitioners had done no activity of this kind after Notification under
Section 144 Cr.P.C. The Notification itself restricted the people suspected
or confirmed with COVID-19 pandemic, to take home or institutional
quarantine and to render assistance or comply with the directions of the
surveillance personnel.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 46 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
82. There is not a whisper in the entire Chargesheet that any of these
Petitioners were found COVID-19 positive or that they had stepped out of
the Markaz after 24.03.2020 or that they were likely to spread COVID-19.
Also, there is not a single averment of them having not rendered any
assistance to the surveillance personnel.
83. None of the activities prohibited under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had been
undertaken by any of the Petitioner after the date of its promulgation. Even
if all other technical grounds are overlooked and it is accepted that there was
due promulgation of the Notification under Section 144 Cr.P.C, then too, no
violation of any of the activities prohibited by the Notification has been
made out in the entire chargesheet.
84. It is therefore, held that the cognizance for the offence under
Section 188 IPC is bad as no prima facie case is made out and the
Petitioners are entitled to be discharged under Section 188 IPC.
III. Whether offences under S.269/270 are made out?
85. In the 13 FIRs of PS Chandni Mahal registered between 31.03.2020
and 02.04.2020, essentially the allegations were that Indians were providing
shelter or housing to the foreign nationals, stranded in the country in the
wake of national lockdown and the unprecedented global crisis of COVID-
19 pandemic, either in their houses or Masjids. The Petitioners have also
been Chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 269 and 270 IPC, which
read as under:
“269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life
– Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and
which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spreadCRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 47 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”
“270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life
– Whoever malignantly does any act which KL J Crl.P. No.152 of
2020 & batch is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to
be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
86. For an offence to be punishable under Section 269 IPC, following
conditions must be satisfied: (i) the person, so accused, must necessarily be
infected with the disease; (ii) the person must be necessarily have
knowledge of being so infected; and (iii) there must be mens rea for
negligently or maliciously spreading the disease.
87. Section 270 IPC provides that such act must be a malignant act.
88. These two Sections make the Act punitive, when it is done unlawfully
or negligently and which he knows or has reason to believe is likely to
spread disease dangerous to human life.
89. High Court of Bombay in the case of HLA Shwe & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 959, while considering similar cases
which arose during COVID-19 pandemic situation, observed that to attract
ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 IPC, the person must commit any act
which he knows is likely to spread infection of any disease which is
dangerous to life. The Petitioners were found to have undergone Covid-19
test during their period of quarantine i.e. from 03.04.2020 and their test
report was negative. They were kept in isolation under the supervision of
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 48 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Doctor. No material on record to prove that they had indulged in any act
which was likely to spread infection of COVID-19. No material was
produced in the Chargesheet and no evidence was placed on record to
substantiate the fulfilment of ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 IPC.
90. Similarly, in the case of Konan Kodio Ganstone and Others vs. State
of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom
877, in the similar facts, it was held that there was no relevant material, from
where it was possible to infer under any circumstances that these persons
were infected when they arrived in India or that they have committed the act
punishable under Sections 269 and 270 IPC.
91. In the present case as well, there is not a whisper in the FIRs or the
Chargesheets that Petitioners were found COVID-19 positive or they had
moved out negligently or unlawfully with intent or knowledge to spread the
disease of COVID-19, which was dangerous to human life.
92. Even if all the evidences as put forth in the Chargesheet is admitted,
no offence under Sections 269 and 270 IPC has even prima facie made
out and Chargesheets are liable to be quashed for these offences under
Sections 269 and 270 IPC.
IV. Whether offences under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897,
Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 are made out?
93. In FIR No.0101/2020 registered at PS: Sarai Rohilla and FIR
Nos.141/2020 & 142/2020 registered at PS: Krishna Nagar, Petitioners
have also been chargesheeted for the offence under Section 3 of the
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act,
2005.
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 49 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
94. Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, states that
whosoever obstructs the officer of Central Govt. or State Govt., in
discharging their duty or refuse to comply with any direction issued on their
behalf, would be guilty of the offence. However, as already discussed above
in detail, there is no averment of any Govt. official being obstructed or there
being any refusal to comply with any directions issued by the Government.
No offence under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has
therefore, been made out.
95. Likewise, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, provides
penalty for disobeying any Regulation or Order made under this Act, and
shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 188
IPC. There is no averment about which Order taken out under the Disaster
Management Act has been violated. Also, in the light of aforesaid
discussion, it is not shown that there was any criminal act, whether under
Disaster Management Act or Epidemic Diseases Act, committed by the
Petitioners. The FIRs under these two Sections are also liable to be
quashed.
Conclusion:
96. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that no offence under
Sections 188/269/270/271 of IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases
Act, 1897, Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is even prima
facie made out in the Chargesheets. It may also be observed that all the cases
that were registered during the COVID-19 period, under the aforesaid
Sections before various Court across the country have ended either in
acquittal or discharge of the accused persons, against whom these FIRs and
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 50 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
Chargesheets were filed. The continuation of these Chargesheets would
tantamount be abuse of the process and also is not in the interest of Justice,
in terms of the Principles enunciated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
97. The aforesaid Chargesheets and proceedings emanating therefrom, are
hereby quashed and Petitioners are discharged.
98. Petitions along with Pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2025/R
CRL.M.C. 196/2021 & connected petitions Page 51 of 51
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.07.2025
11:44:32
[ad_1]
Source link