Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Not Wearing Mask During COVID Lockdown, Asks Him To Fund Police As 'Civic Responsibility'

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a lawyer for standing outside his residence without a mask during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020.

Justice Sanjeev Narula accepted his counsel's statement that the lawyer was willing to deposit Rs. 10,000 with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund as a “gesture of civic responsibility”, without admission of guilt.

“The statement is accepted. Let the deposit be made within four weeks from today. Proof of deposit shall be submitted to the concerned Investigating Officer within one week thereafter,” the Court said.

Justice Narula allowed the plea filed by the lawyer, seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Section 188 (disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant) and 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It was the Delhi Police's case that the lawyer's conduct violated the order issued under Section 144 of CrPC, which mandated wearing of face coverings in public places.

It was the lawyer's case that he had merely stepped to the gate of his residence when he was apprehended and taken to the police station and that as a practising Advocate with no prior infraction, he had no intent to disregard any lawful directive.

He submitted that a brief presence at one's gate without a mask could not reasonably be treated as disobedience of an order under Section 144 of CrPC.

Allowing the plea, the Court noted that the lawyer's awareness of the order promulgated under Section 144 of CrPC can, at best, be inferred, as there was no material to show that he had actual or complete knowledge of the said order.

It added that even if one were to assume knowledge, the facts alleged were that the lawyer was at or just outside his residential gate, not in the midst of a crowd, procession or gathering.

“The complaint does not show how such conduct caused or risked the mischief contemplated under Section 188 of IPC. The provision is not meant to punish every technical deviation but conduct that obstructs authority or endangers public order or safety. With the Section 269 of IPC charge already dropped for lack of any material of infection, the circumstances pleaded do not disclose the degree of disobedience contemplated by Section 188 of IPC,” the Court said.

Justice Narula said that the Court was mindful that COVID-19 was an extraordinary public health emergency and that executive orders issued under Section 144 of CrPC and the Epidemic Diseases or Disaster Management frameworks were intended to save lives.

“The Courts should not lightly second-guess good-faith enforcement. Equally, criminal law can be a blunt instrument. Thus, where the record does not disclose the statutory prerequisites, or where the alleged act is at the margins of the mischief sought to be addressed, continued prosecution would be disproportionate and an abuse of process,” the Court said.

“In these circumstances, the continuation of proceedings under Section 188 of IPC would be oppressive and would not advance public health objectives. This is an apt case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice,” it added.

Title: ABC v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1535