Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/783/2020 on 17 June, 2020
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
WPCRL No. 783 of 2020 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
This Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing.
The petitioner is an accused for commission of the offences under Sections 186, 188, 269, 270, 323, 332, 353, 504 and 506 IPC, which was registered at Police Station Banbulpura, Haldwani, District Nainital, as per the F.I.R. which has been registered against him by respondents, being F.I.R. No. 231 of 2020.
As per the set of allegation, which has been levelled in the F.I.R., apart from the fact that the petitioner is named therein, the allegations are that when during the lock down period; as declared by the Government of India due to the pandemic, the petitioner is accused of to be moving around in public in his private Swift Car UK 04 T4794 despite restrictions. When he was stopped by the police personnel deputed/deployed to restrain the free movement of the general public to curb the spreading of pandemic, he misbehaved with the police personnel and there is an allegation in the F.I.R., also to the effect that he tried to threaten them to show as if he belongs to Uttar Ujala Family and he can move scot free, despite restrictions due to the directives of Government of India, which was issued in the interest of the general public, and nothing can be done against him. It is also alleged that he returned back with the patal (a sharp edged weapon) and assaulted on the police personnel, performing their duties in crisis.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the set of allegations levelled in the F.I.R., and particularly, the offences complained therein, they all are punishable with a sentence of period lesser than seven years and hence, he would be falling within the umbrella of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Arnesh Kumar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273. He further submits that he is an innocent person and he has been wrongly roped up with the offence.
As far as the argument pertaining to the ratio of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) is concerned, though the wider principle may be to refrain or desist from an arrest of accused person in commission of the offences, which entails punishment of a period, lesser than seven years under normal circumstances. But, in the present situation, when the country is facing the crises due to Covid-19 pandemic, when there is en-mass catastrophe, and the disease is at its uncontrollable spurt, causing unprecedented casualties and where there are strict directives issued by the Government of India, as well as by the local administration restraining the movement of public in public places due to the enforcement of the lock down, if the citizen does not follow the law, I am of the opinion that he is bound to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. because it would be treated that he would be instrumental in spreading the disease, which is restricted under law in view of the provisions contained under Sections 269 and 370 IPC.
In that view of the matter, since this Court in the exercise of its prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not in a position to conduct an investigation in relation to the offence alleged against the petitioner but since it was an offence against the public at large endangering their life, and in contravention to the directives of the Government of India, I am not inclined to exercise my extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because present Writ will not fall within the ambit of exceptional cases, where the Writ jurisdiction is to be exercised.
Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the Writ petition for the reason aforesaid is independent and would not prejudice the petitioner's proceeding in case, if he resorts to for seeking his appropriate remedy before the regular Court.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 17.06.2020 Shiv