Madras High Court Quashes COVID-19 Lockdown Case As Time-Barred; Notes State Policy To Withdraw Such Cases

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and set aside the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 873 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi.

During the COVID-19 restrictions in May 2020, the accused persons, who were associated with a private company, engaged in unloading activities in violation of lockdown norms and, upon intervention by public officials, abused and attempted to assault them.

An FIR was registered under Sections 188, 269 and 353 IPC, along with provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 269, 353 and 270 IPC. Though the final report was prepared on 08.09.2020, it was filed before the Trial Court only on 16.05.2025.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no valid promulgation of prohibitory orders and that the allegations were vague and unsupported by material evidence. It was further submitted that the proceedings were hit by limitation under Section 468 CrPC, since cognizance had been taken after nearly five years without any condonation of delay. It was also argued that the case ought to have been withdrawn in terms of G.O.(Ms). No.176 dated 05.04.2022, by which the State Government withdrew a large number of cases registered during the pandemic period.

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case pertained to the COVID-19 period and that similarly placed cases had been withdrawn by invoking Section 321 CrPC. It was acknowledged that the present case had not been withdrawn due to oversight and that cognizance had been taken with delay without any petition for condonation.

The Court observed that the State had withdrawn 8,98,948 cases arising out of COVID-19 violations and that the present case ought to have been covered under the said Government Order. The Court further found that cognizance taken after five years, in the absence of any condonation of delay, was clearly barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC. Holding that the continuation of proceedings was unsustainable both on facts and in law, the Court quashed the case not only against the petitioners but also against similarly placed co-accused.

Appearance: Ashwinkumar A from AMS Legal for the petitioners; Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

Case Name: Mohamed Farvesh & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case Number: Crl.O.P. No. 5055 of 2026