The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a man for allegedly violating the COVID-19 lockdown by venturing out for a walk.

Justice Madhu Jain held that mere presence on a public road during the lockdown, unaccompanied by any circumstance capable of attracting the consequences envisaged under Section 188 of IPC, does not constitute an offence under the provision.

“The significance of the absence of any overt act is further underscored by the fact that the lockdown regime did not impose a blanket prohibition on movement, but expressly permitted movement for essential purposes, including medical needs,” the Court said.

The judge said that the prosecution failed to place any material on record to show that the lockdown order dated March 24, 2020, was publicly promulgated or that the man had knowledge of it.

The petitioner, Anupam Sahu, sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 188, 269, 270 and 336 of IPC after he was stopped by police on March 28, 2020 while walking during the nationwide lockdown.

According to the FIR, he had told the police that he had stepped out because he was unable to remain indoors.

The Court said that the prosecution collapsed at the threshold as the record showed that the order dated 24.03.2020, which is alleged to have been violated by the man, did not accompany the chargesheet.

“Furthermore, neither the FIR, the chargesheet, nor the statement of Ct. Sudhir contains a single averment that the said order was promulgated by way of proclamation, publication, affixation, or any other public mode, or that it was published in any newspaper or other media circulating in the area where the petitioner resided, or that the petitioner had knowledge of it. There is, quite literally, nothing on record in this regard. Knowledge cannot be presumed in a vacuum, least of all on the fourth day of an unprecedented nationwide lockdown,” the Court said.

It added that the petitioner was merely a solitary pedestrian and beyond his presence on a public road, the FIR alleged no overt act whatsoever.

The judge also observed that even if the version set out in the FIR was accepted in its entirety, the essential ingredients of promulgation, knowledge, and the requisite consequence remain unestablished. In the absence of these foundational ingredients, no offence under Section 188 IPC is made out, the Court said.

As regards Sections 269 and 270 of IPC, the Court held that these provisions presuppose that the accused was infected, or knew or had reason to believe that he was infected with a disease likely to spread infection. Since the man was never tested for COVID-19 and there was no allegation that he was infected, symptomatic or suspected to be infected, the very foundation for invoking the said provisions was found to be absent.

It also held that the invocation of Section 336 of IPC was wholly misconceived, as the foundational requirement of endangerment was conspicuously absent.

Continuing the prosecution more than six years after the incident would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the judge said, before quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Ashima Mandla, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Advs

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP

Title: ANUPAM SHAHU v. THE STATE

Click here to read order