Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S K Chilamkurthi vs State Of Ap on 6 August, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2618 of 2020
ORDER:(Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short 'Cr.P.C.'), 1973 seeking to quash proceedings in First Information Report(for short 'F.I.R.') No.128 of 2020 dated 30.03.2020 on the file of Station House Officer, Bandar Taluq Police Station, Machilipatnam. The said F.I.R., has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 271 of Indian Penal Code( for short 'I.P.C.') and under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
The petitioner is a permanent resident of Nelakurru village, Bandar Mandal of Krishna District and temporarily residing at United States of America(U.S.A.) by virtue of his avocation. To see his parents, the petitioner started from U.S.A., on 13.03.2020 and reached his native village Nelakurru on 16.03.2020. In view of the COVID-19 regulations imposed by the Government of A.P., vide G.O.R.T.No.189 dated 13.03.2020, the petitioner himself went into self quarantine w.e.f. 16.03.2020. While so, a notice signed on 22.03.2020 was issued by the respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner was informed that he should be in self/home quarantine for a period of 14 days w.e.f. 16.03.2020 to 30.03.2020 and that para Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 of the COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 should be followed. Accordingly, the petitioner 2 followed the guidelines and continued self/home quarantine. In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.R.T.No.207 dated 21.03.2020 making certain amendments to COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 issued in G.O.R.T.No.189 dated 13.03.2020.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 14 days quarantine was completed on 29.03.2020 and on 30.03.2020 when the petitioner came out, the respondent No.2 detained the petitioner on the ground that he has violated the lock down regulations and registered a crime under Sections 188, 269, 271 of I.P.C., and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act vide F.I.R.No.128 of 2020 dated 30.03.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration of F.I.R., against the petitioner and continuation of proceedings for the alleged offences is not tenable or sustainable in Law. He submits that the 14 days quarantine started on 16.03.2020 was completed by 29.03.2020. However, the police has taken 30.03.2020 as last date of self quarantine/home isolation and registered the case against the petitioner as if he is violated the lock down regulations imposed by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per regulation No.12 issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 13.03.2020, "All persons with a history of travel to a Country or Area from where COVID-19 has been reported in last 14 days, but who do not have any symptoms of cough, fever, difficulty in breathing, should isolate themselves at home. Such persons must take precautions to avoid contact with any person including family members for 14 days from the date of arrival from such areas."
3
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has arrived on 16.03.2020 and therefore 14 days of quarantine will be completed by 29.03.2020. But, however the respondent No.2 in the notice signed on 22.03.2020 mentioned it as 30.03.2020 and the same is not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the amended regulations issued vide G.O.R.T.No.207 dated 21.03.2020 are not applicable to the petitioner in as much as the same are applicable to the persons who have violated the norms of isolation and moving out of the premises which is ordinary place of residence/last reported place of occupation like hotel etc., The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of violation of home quarantine/self isolation by the petitioner would not arise at all since he has completed 14 days by 29.03.2020 and further that the petitioner was not having any symptoms for COVID-19 and there was no possibility of spreading Corona Virus and thereby attracting the provisions of Epidemic Diseases Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no violation much less disobedience to the Government Orders and therefore registration of F.I.R., for the alleged offences against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. He further contends that since the petitioner has no infection, spreading of Virus does not arise at all and the registration of crime under Sections 269 and 271 of I.P.C., is not warranted and therefore seeks to quash the F.I.R., registered against the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was served with a notice advising him to go for home/self quarantine for 14 days w.e.f., 16.03.2020 to 30.03.2020, however the petitioner though 14 days as mentioned in the notice, have not completed, came out of home quarantine and since he violated the 4 regulations, the crime was registered on 30.03.2020 and the same is valid and in the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for.
It is not in dispute that in the present case, a notice signed on 22.03.2020 has been issued to the petitioner asking him to be in home quarantine for a period of 14 days upto 30.03.2020. In the notice, it is mentioned that the petitioner came on 16.03.2020. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the 14 days time is counted from 16.03.2020, the same would end by 29.03.2020. As seen from regulation No.12 of G.O.Ms.No.189 dated 13.03.2020, it contemplates that "all persons with a history of travel to a country or area from where COVID- 19 has been reported in last 14 days, but who do not have any symptoms of cough, fever, difficulty in breathing, should isolate themselves at home. Such persons must take precautions to avoid contact with any person including family members for 14 days from the date of arrival from such areas". Thus, it is clear that 14 days commences from the date of arrival of a particular person. In the present case, the date of arrival of the petitioner is 16.03.2020 and the counting of 14 days from the said date, the period of isolation would come to an end by 29.03.2020. Under the said circumstances, the registration of the crime on the ground that the petitioner came out from self quarantine on 30.03.2020 and thereby violated the regulations appears to be not valid. Further, even assuming that the amended regulations are applicable to the petitioner, there is nothing in the F.I.R., registered against the petitioner to indicate that he is effected with COVID-19 and he is likely to spread the disease by causing infection to others by virtue of violating the home quarantine/self isolation regulations. As noticed above, the petitioner has completed the 5 period of quarantine i.e., 14 days from 16.03.2020 to 29.03.2020 and therefore the registration of crime on the premise that lock down regulations are violated is not sustainable. Further, as seen from the F.I.R., it is not case of the respondents that the petitioner is a Covid-19 effected person. Section 269 of I.P.C. would be attracted where a person unlawfully or negligently indulges in any act which is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life and Section 271 of I.P.C., in the event of any disobedience to quarantine rule. As the petitioner has completed the quarantine period of 14 days as discussed above, the question of disobedience to quarantine rule in terms of Section 271 of I.P.C., would not arise. The petitioner came out from home quarantine after completion of 14 days period and therefore the said act cannot be treated as unlawful or negligent which is likely to spread the infection of disease. Hence, the above provisions of Law are not attracted to the facts of the present case.
Under the aforementioned circumstances, the registration of F.I.R., for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 271 of I.P.C., and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act is not warranted. Accordingly, the F.I.R., registered against the petitioner in Crime No.128 of 2020 on the file of Station House Officer, Bandar Taluk Police Station, Machilipatnam is quashed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Date: 06.08.2020 BLV 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2618 of 2020 Date: 06.08.2020 BLV