P.Ganesan v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date : 15.3.2022.

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl. O.P.Nos.5812, 5816 and 5847 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3193, 3198 and 3230 of 2022 P.Ganesan ...Petitioner in all 3 cases vs.

1. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur.

... R1 in all 3 cases P.Pannerselvam The Sub Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur. .... R2 in Crl.O.P.Nos. 5812 & 5816/2022 Rajasekaran The Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur. ... R2 in Crl.O.P.No. 5847/2022 Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records comprised in FIR in Crime Nos.277 of 2020, 306 of 2020 and 557 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur, and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kingsly Solomon For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, APP COMMON ORDER Seeking to quash the FIR in Crime Nos.277 of 2020, 306 of 2020 and 557 of 2020 pending on the file of the Inspector of

Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur against the petitioner, the present Criminal Original Petitions have been filed.

2. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present Criminal Original Petitions are that one and the same petitioner viz., Ganesan in all the three petitions is facing the ordeal of the above cases on the file of the respondent police for the same set of offences viz., Sections 269 and 270 IPC, on the allegation that on interception by the respondent police, he was found roaming near Karadivavi junction check post during the pandemic period in his four wheeler on 15.4.2020 at 2.30 pm, and in his two wheeler on 17.4.2020 at 3.30 pm and on 30.4.2020 at 10.45 am in a manner likely to spread the Covid Virus.

3. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as under:- i) It is only on the first occasion viz., on 15.4.2020, the petitioner had to go out of his house in search of a Pharmacy in a medical emergency and on interception by the respondent police, he had explained the situation and thereupon, he was left to go, however, later, a case appears to have been booked against him in Crime No.277 of 2020, which he came to know when his application for passport was held up with the authorities. ii) Earlier, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to parking of vehicles outside his house and only to wreak vengeance, the respondent police had foisted a case against him attributing intention on the part of the petitioner to spread the infection, especially, when the petitioner was not tested 'positive'.

iii) Not satisfied in lodging a single false case against the petitioner, the respondent police had been watching the petitioner closely and even if he goes out of his house to take care of his aged parents, who reside in a nearby house, the respondent police had intercepted him and subsequently, he understood that the second and the third cases viz., Crime No.306 of 2020 and 557 of 2020 had been lodged by the respondent police on 17.4.2020 and 30.4.2020 when, actually, the petitioner had not roamed as alleged by them.

iv) All the three cases are false cases foisted by the respondent police and it is an abuse of power vested with them, only to satisfy their personal grudge against the petitioner for the altercation that took place between himself and the

respondent police with regard to parking of vehicles outside his house.

v) The pendency of the FIRs lodged in a casual way stand in the way of his betterment in life and also as a hindrance in the passport clearance and therefore, prays for quashment of all the three FIRs.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision of this court in Sarath alias Sarathkumar vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police in Crl.O.P.(MD) NO.13652 of 2021 dated 16.9.2021 and S.Sarunraj vs. Inspector of Police reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad. 6046 in support of his contention.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials produced by the petitioner in support of his contention.

6. It is seen that in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court, in similar situation, has observed that a mere warning alone ought to have been made and the non-intentional outing should not be taken seriously especially when the Government had also proposed to drop all such cases. The FIRs in the cases on hand had been filed in April 2020 itself, however, they have been kept pending for about two years without any useful purpose, rather to freeze the normalcy of the petitioner by causing unnecessary mental agony to him.

7. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 269 and 270 IPC, which read as under:- "269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason the believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."s

8. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was infected with covid or was suffering from any contagious disease.

There is also nothing to show that he had intentionally or negligently did any act so as to spread infection to any other person. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 IPC cannot be sustained.

9. While the documentary proof submitted by the petitioner evidencing his approach for passport clearance with regard to his overseas employment opportunity and the reply thereon from the authorities concerned calling for his explanation about the cases pending against him would prove the genuineness of the case of the petitioner, the inaction on the part of the respondent police in giving a quietus to the issue when almost two years are going to lapse from the date of filing of FIR, especially, when this court, in various cases, has dealt with a similar issue and quashed the FIRs, raises a suspicion of intention on the part of the respondent police in leaving the petitioner in lurch to wreak vengeance for the altercation he had with them.

10.In fine, this court is of the view that the impugned FIRs are liable to be quashed forthwith. Accordingly, they are quashed. The Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ssk.

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Kamanaickenpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+3ccs to Kingsly Solomon J., Advocate Sr. Nos.17515, 17516, 17517 Crl. O.P.Nos.5812, 5816 & 5847 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3193, 3198 & 3230 of 2022 ad[co] srg 05/04/2022