Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against COVID "Infected" Doctor Booked For Not Getting Admitted In Quarantine Centre

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a doctor during the Covid-19 lockdown, who despite being infected by the virus failed to get himself admitted in a Covid Centre despite a clear order to him to come to the said facility for treatment.

Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke quashed the FIR lodged against Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar booked on a complaint filed by Dr. Vinayak Shankar Bhalerao, who was on an 108 Ambulance (emergency service). The Medical Superintendent of the Buldhana district has called Bhalerao to take help of the local police to bring in Zawar so that he can be admitted in the Covid Centre at Mehekar, Buldhana.

Since Zawar did not report to the Covid Centre as ordered initially by the Medical Superintendent, Bhalerao along with the police went to the accused doctor's residence only to get no response from him or his family. The police even made announcement with the help of a megaphone but Zawar did not come out.

After some time, the complainant doctor was informed that Zawar reached the Covid Centre on his own. Subsequently, the instant FIR was lodged invoking provisions of sections 188 (disobeying orders of a public servant), 269 (negligent acts likely to spread dangerous infections) and 270 (malignant acts likely to spread infection of a life-threatening disease) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

However, Justice Joshi-Phalke held that the material on record fell short to prosecute Zawar especially because he himself went to the Covid Centre, though after some time.

"It reveals that the present applicant was in Home Quarantine and he was asked to appear at the Covid Centre. Admittedly, notice issued to the present applicant shows that he was asked to appear in the said Quarantine Centre, but he subsequently appeared at 1.15 PM. Thus, it is not the case that he did not turn up to the Quarantine Centre. In fact, the statement of various witnesses show that subsequently, he reported to the said Quarantine Centre. Thus, as far as the offence under Section 188 of the IPC which deals with the disobedience of the order duly promulgated by the public servant is not attracted against the present applicant," Justice Joshi-Phalke held in the order passed on April 8.

Similarly, the offence punishable under Section 269 of the IPC did not attract against Zawar, the judge opined as there was no allegation that he unlawfully or negligently did any act which he knew or had the reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life and which would be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months.

"Similarly, ingredients of Section 270 of the IPC are also not attracted and therefore, in view of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant," the judge held.

With these observations, the court quashed the FIR lodged against the doctor.

Appearance:

Advocate Abhay Sambre appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor KR Lule represented the State.

Advocates Rahul Jadhao and NB Rathod represented the Complainant.

Case Title: Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 693 of 2020)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 195

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment