Meghalaya High Court
Dr. Sasikumar R. vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr. on 18 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MEG 8
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 5 of 2021
Date of Decision: 18.02.2021
Dr. Sasikumar R. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, GA. for R 1.
None for R 2.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1. An account given by the Petitioner is that he is presently working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agri Business Management & Food Technology, NEHU, Tura Campus, Meghalaya and had to travel to Tezpur University, Assam on 26.06.2020 for official duty, for which he was issued transit pass following the due protocol of COVID-19.
2. After completion of his official duties, he returned on 08.07.2020 and at the Meghalaya border, the police personnel after verifying all his documents allowed him to proceed to his destination and accordingly, he reached home at 4:30 PM and was supposed to be home-quarantined for 14(fourteen) days.
3. However, on the next day, i.e. 09.07.2020 he received a phone call at 7:49 PM from the informant asking him to proceed to ISBT, Tura (COVID Check Point) for registration and was institutionally quarantined at Chirangre, Tura for five days. During this period, he was tested twice and both results came out negative, after which he was released from institutional quarantine.
14. After his release from the quarantine centre, he was arrested on 14.07.2020 allegedly on an FIR being filed and registered against him for violation of COVID protocol being Tura P.S Case No. 90(7)2020 u/s 188/47 IPC r/w section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The sections involved being bailable, he was subsequently released on bail.
5. The Investigating Officer then filed the Charge Sheet dated 10.08.2020 and G.R Case No. 66/2020 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tura proceeded against the Petitioner herein.
6. Terming the case against him as absolutely frivolous and false, the Petitioner has therefore approached this Court with this instant application under Sections 482/401 Cr.P.C with a prayer to set aside and quash the proceedings in the said G.R Case No. 66/2020.
7. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in his submission has assailed the proceedings by firstly stating that the Charge Sheet was filed without following due process of law, inasmuch as, the statement of the Petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C has not yet been recorded till date inspite of his appearance before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tura on 26.08.2020, 04.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 07.12.2020, 11.01.2021 and lastly on 12.02.2021.
8. However, the thrust of the Petitioner's contention is that the informant who is said to have triggered the criminal process in question in the said G.R Case No. 66/2020 has failed to get his statement recorded by the police and has also denied to give his statement and as such, the Investigating Officer (I/O) without any substantial evidence has filed the Charge Sheet, which would put a big question mark on the prosecution's attempt to prove the case.
9. It is also submitted that since the statement of the informant was not recorded by the I/O, therefore the reliability of the contents of the FIR is put to doubt and cannot be sustained in law. Circumstantial evidence would also only prove that the prosecution has no basis to secure conviction of the 2 accused/Petitioner. In this regard, the case of Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra:(1982) 2 SCC 351 was cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner who has submitted that in the said case, the Apex court has held that when the case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: -
(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. (2) Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused.
(3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
10. Mr. Das has again brought to the fore the lacuna in the said proceedings, inasmuch as, the conduct of the I/O in filing the said Charge Sheet is said to have been done in a mechanical and casual manner by simply annexing the statement of the Accused/Petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C but without any supporting statement of the informant and other witnesses as such, the manner of investigation reflected complete lack of application of mind on the part of the I/O which would prejudice the Petitioner who has a great career prospect. In this respect, it is submitted that the Petitioner has applied for being considered for Fulbright-Nehru Postdoctoral Research Fellowship for a period of 12(twelve) months starting from August 16, 2021and the process of police verification would be hampered by the pendency of the said criminal proceedings.
311. The case of State of Haryana & Ors v. Bhajanlal & Ors: 1992 (Supp.1) SCC 335 was also cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner to impress upon this Court that in cases of this nature, this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings said to have been initiated where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reached a just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused.
12. Yet another case cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is the case of Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Anr: (2014) 6 SCC 446, wherein at paragraph 29(5) of the same, the Apex Court has held that while exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case.
13. In reply, the learned GA, Mr. H. Kharmih appearing for the State Respondent has submitted that from the FIR which has been annexed in the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner, it is apparent that the Petitioner has violated the COVID protocol, for which he is rightly prosecuted in accordance with law. However, the learned GA has also fairly conceded that the Charge Sheet would show that the Complainant is not available and as such, it is left to the discretion of this Court to decide on the matter.
14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also duly considered the submission and contentions advanced before this Court. Facts and circumstances having been stated above, what is required to be examined by this Court is whether the Petitioner has been able to make out a case for exercising the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings impugned?
15. A look at the FIR dated 10.07.2020 would show that the Complainant has reported to the Officer In-Charge, Tura Police station about the alleged 4 acts of violations occasioned by the Petitioner while entering the District via Bajengdoba CP from Tezpur, Assam by his own private vehicle and his failure to report at ISBT, Tura for spot registration and medical which has endangered public safety and health safety protocols and has violated the measures being taken by the Authorities to prevent the spread of dangerous disease and necessary action was sought to be taken following which Tura P.S Case No. 90(07)2020 u/s 188/417 r/w section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 was registered and the Petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail.
16. However, what is strange to notice is that, apparently after completion of the investigation, the I/O has filed the Charge Sheet purportedly under Section 173 Cr.P.C and has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case under the relevant sections of law exists against the Petitioner herein, but in the said Charge Sheet, the I/O has pointedly mentioned that the Complainant cannot be examined as the contact number given in the FIR is not working and further stated that it seems that the Complainant has denied to give any statement. In the list of witnesses proposed to be examined in support of the prosecution's case, the name of the Complainant, that is, Shri J.D. Sangma, Executive Magistrate Zone -I West Garo Hills and one Shri Krishna Bdr Chettri was cited.
17. On the basis of the above, what is noticed here is that the FIR was lodged by none other than the Executive Magistrate, who can be said to be a very educated person and who by the very nature of his work can also be said to be well versed with the law and procedure. The fact that the I/O has clearly stated that the complainant perhaps referring to the said Executive Magistrate has not only failed to respond to the phone call made at the number given by him in the FIR and also the fact that the complainant has declined (deny) to give his statement would only show that the said complaint (FIR) was lodged with no intention to follow up the matter.
18. In the light of this situation, coupled with the fact that there is nothing 5 on record to show that the recording of statement of any relevant witnesses has been recorded by the I/O, the institution of the criminal case smacks of malafide. Under the circumstances, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove its case and consequently the possibility of conviction would be remote.
19. As pointed out above, in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) the Apex Court has enumerated one of the guidelines which the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C if on the basis of the FIR a just conclusion is reached that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
20. Again in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the relevant paragraph cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner i.e. paragraph 29.5 would find favour with this Court, inasmuch as, in the considered opinion of this Court, the continuation of the criminal case against the Petitioner herein will only result in acquittal and as such, quashing of the proceedings impugned would be for the ends of justice.
21. Consequently, this Court finds merit in the prayer of the Petitioner and the same is accordingly allowed.
22. The proceedings of G.R Case No. 66 of 2020 pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tura, West Garo Hills District are hereby set aside and quashed.
23. The Petitioner is hereby absolved of any liability in the case and the bail bond executed stands discharged.
24. With the above, this instant petition is disposed of. No cost.
Judge Meghalaya 18.02.2021 "N. Swer, Stenographer"
6