Delhi District Court
State vs Amit on 17 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF PREETI:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Amit @ Kala
FIR No : 57/2022
U/s : 188/269/270/271 IPC
P.S. : I P Estate
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 4614/2023 2. Date of commission of offense : April 2020 3. Date of institution of the case : 15.04.2023 4. Name of the complainant : State 5. Name of accused, parentage & : Amit @ Kala S/o Shri Niwas 6. Offense complained or proved : 188/269/270/271 IPC 7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 8. Date on which order was reserved : not reserved 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 17.10.2025
1. The accused is facing trial for offence u/s 188/269/270/271 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that in the month of April 2020 accused was in quarantine being the suspect of Covid-19 in Ward No. 31, Medicine Block, FIR No. 57/2020 P.S. IP State State Vs. Amit @ Kala Page 1 of 7 LNJP, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS IP Estate and he fled away from the ward negligently and committed malignant act likely to spread infections of disease of Covid-19 to the life of others and also violated the direction of ACP, Kamla Market and had committed offence u/s 188/269/270/271 IPC.
2. After registration of the FIR against accused, the criminal law was set into motion and the investigation began. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against accused for the alleged offence.
3. The cognizance of the offence was taken and after procuring the presence of accused through instrumentality of Court, provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and thereafter, on finding sufficient grounds to proceed against accused, notice of accusation for offence u/s 188/269/270/271 IPC was framed and served upon accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The accused admitted that factum of registration of DD NO. 3 PP dated 18.04.2020 Ex. A1, complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC Ex.A2 vide separate statement and the witness qua such documents were dropped from the list of witness u/s 294 Cr.P.C..
5. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined five witnesses. The testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses are as follows:
5.1. PW-1 Dr. Satyajeet deposed that on 17.04.2020, he was posted as CMO at LNJP Hospital. The covid suspect patient namely Lukhzer and Amit were admitted in the hospital and they left without any intimation. Doctor FIR No. 57/2020 P.S. IP State State Vs. Amit @ Kala Page 2 of 7 Dharmender posted as PG Resident made a complaint in this regard and he forwarded the same to the police authority for necessary action. On the said complaint, the present FIR was registered. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
5.2. PW-2 Sh. R.P. Pandey deposed that on 06.04.2020, he was posted as incharge MRD, LNJP Hospital, Delhi. IO/SI Narender served him notice u/s- 91 Cr.P.C requesting to provide the documents/information mentioned therein.
He provided the same to IO. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
5.3. PW-3 SI Narender deposed that on 17.04.2020, he was posted at P.S. I.P.Estate as SI. At about 05:00 am, he was present in LNJP Hospital. The CMO LNJP Hospital Dr. Satyajeet gave him his complaint stating that two patient of Covid-19 were admitted in the hospital and they left their bed and fled away. He prepared rukka and he presented the same to duty officer who got recorded the FIR. Efforts were made to trace the patient but he was not traced out. The W.T. messages were got circulated. In the intervening night of 17-18 April, 2019, the police of P.S. Sampla Haryana brought the accused Amit @ Kala and produced him. Information was given to CMO and he was again got admitted in the hospital. He collected the order of concerned ACP and obtained the sanction u/s- 195 Cr.P.C. The accused did not join the investigation after discharge from hospital. Thereafter, the accused was arrested in a case of Munka. The accused was in JC. Thereafter, he was arrested in present matter on production warrant. The accused was interrogated who made his disclosure statement. He collected the relevant medical documents of accused from hospital and kept the same on record. After FIR No. 57/2020 P.S. IP State State Vs. Amit @ Kala Page 3 of 7 completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. This witness was cross- examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
5.4. PW-4 Dr. Dharmander Singh deposed that on 17.04.2020, he was posted as PG IIIrd Year at LNJP Hospital. The covid suspect patient namely Lukhzer and Amit were admitted in the hospital and they left without any intimation. He made a complaint in this regard and he forwarded the same to CMO for necessary action. On the said complaint the present FIR was registered. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
5.5. PW-5 ASI Vinod Kumar deposed that on 17.04.2020, he was posted as ASI/ Duty Officer from 04.00 pm to 12:00 midnight. SI Narender Beniwal presented him rukka for registration of the FIR. On the basis of the same, the FIR No. 57/2020 was registered to the offence under Section 188/269/270/271 IPC on computer installed in DO room, which was kept in the safe custody and supervision of SHO and there was no chance of any type of tampering in the contents feed in the computer system. After registration of FIR, the copy of the FIR was retained in the PS as record. One copy of FIR alongwith original complaint duly endorsed by him and certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act were handed over to SI Narender Beniwal to whom, the investigation was marked. He had brought the register of FIR. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
6. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 281 Cr.P.C read with section 313 Cr PC. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances, were put to accused. The accused submitted that he was innocent and that he was falsely FIR No. 57/2020 P.S. IP State State Vs. Amit @ Kala Page 4 of 7 implicated in the present case. The accused opted not led evidence in defence.
7. Thereafter, Accused submits that he did not want to advance final arguments and matter be decided on merits.
8. Ld. APP argued that the testimony of the prosecution witness is coherent and sufficient to render conviction to accused. With these submissions, it is prayed that accused be convicted.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused it was incumbent on the part of prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of offence u/s 188 IPC.
10. Section 188 IPC lays down punishment for disobedience to the order duly promulgated by public servant. This provision provides that whoever knowingly acts in disobedience of an order promulgated by public servant whereby he is directed to abstain from certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management and such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety or is likely to cause riot or affray is liable to be punished with imprisonment extending upto six months and fine extending up to Rs.1000/- or with both.
11. Thus, to sustain conviction under Section 188 IPC, the accused must have 'knowledge' of the order promulgated by the public servant. It is a mandatory and pre-requisite, failing which conviction under the same would not sustain. Actual proof of the same has to be produced on record and in the absence of the same, no presumption of having acquired or gained knowledge of the said order can be attributed to the accused. Therefore, the onus is upon FIR No. 57/2020 P.S. IP State State Vs. Amit @ Kala Page 5 of 7 the prosecution to establish that the accused had knowledge of the order promulgated by the public servant, while disobeying it and that such disobedience had caused / tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or an injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to a person lawfully employed and not just to any person.
12. Coming to the facts to the case in hand prosecution has alleged that in the month of April 2020, accused was in quarantine being the suspect of Covid-19 in Ward No. 31, Medicine Block, LNJP, Delhi and he fled away from the ward negligently and committed malignant act likely to spread infections of diseased of Covid-19 to the life of others and also violated the direction of ACP, Kamla Market. Firstly, the order u/s 144 Cr.PC on the basis of which accused was put to trial has not been proved by prosecution as no witness has come on record to prove the order. Secondly, as per the order itself, the any suspect of Covid-19 had to take measures for prevention/ treatment or had to render assistant to the surveillance personnel but the complainant i.e. PW-4 upon whose complaint, the FIR was registered did not identify the accused in cross-examination.
13. Furthermore, order u/s 144 Cr.PC was required to be published in view of the standing order number 309 issued by DCP (HQ) dated 31.01.2003 which prescribed the mode of service of the order passed u/s 144 Cr.PC. As per the standing order, there has to be a display of the banner indicating promulgation of section 144 Cr.PC. However, in the present case there has not been put-forth any evidence to show that any of the mode described in standing order no. 309 was used for informing the general public. Therefore, no presumption that accused had knowledge of the order can be taken when the compliance of FIR No. 57/2020 P.S. IP State State Vs. Amit @ Kala Page 6 of 7 standing order 309 as well as requirements of section 188 IPC are not fulfilled. Mere disobedience of order u/s 144 Cr.PC cannot be made punishable u/s 188 IPC unless it is shown that such disobedience cause any obstruction, annoyance or injury to a person lawfully employed. Prosecution has failed to bring anything on record to show that any obstruction, annoyance or injury was caused to the police official. Further, no conclusive report of the accused has been filed on record to show that accused was tested positive for Covid-19.
14. In view the discussion made above, as it emerges that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the accused despite being aware of the direction of ACP, Kamla Market fled away from the ward negligently and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted for the offences with which he has been charged. The accused Amit @ Kala is accordingly acquitted for offence u/s 188/269/270/271 IPC.
15. The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trial stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI Date: 2025.10.17 16:58:40 +0545 Announced in the open court (Preeti) on 17th day of Oct. 2025 JMFC-03(Central), THC, Delhi FIR No. 57/2020 P.S. IP State State Vs. Amit @ Kala Page 7 of 7