Court finds lack of essential ingredients for offenses under IPC sections 188, 269, 270, and 336, highlighting absence of evidence and procedural lapses.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Anupam Shahu, who was accused of violating lockdown restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The FIR, numbered 105/2020, was registered at Police Station Kishangarh, District South-West, alleging offenses under Sections 188, 269, 270, and 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court's decision, dated July 21, 2026, comes after a detailed examination of the procedural lapses and the lack of evidence supporting the charges.
Justice Madhu Jain, presiding over the case, emphasized the absence of key elements necessary to establish the offenses. The court noted that for an offense under Section 188 IPC, which pertains to disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant, essential ingredients such as promulgation and knowledge of the order were not established. The court highlighted that there was no evidence of the order being publicly promulgated or that Shahu had knowledge of it. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to demonstrate any resultant obstruction, annoyance, or injury to persons lawfully employed.
For charges under Sections 269 and 270 IPC, which relate to negligent acts likely to spread infection, the court found that the prosecution did not allege or prove that Shahu was infected with COVID-19. The court stressed that there was no COVID-19 test conducted on Shahu, and no evidence was presented to suggest he was symptomatic or posed any risk of spreading the infection.
Section 336 IPC, which penalizes acts endangering human life or personal safety, was also deemed inapplicable. The court observed that the chargesheet lacked any material to indicate that Shahu's conduct endangered anyone's life or safety.
The judgment also pointed out procedural lapses, including the investigation being conducted solely by police officers without any public witnesses, and the chargesheet relying only on police testimonies. The court referred to several precedents, reinforcing the principle that allegations in an FIR must prima facie disclose an offense for the prosecution to proceed.
Justice Jain invoked the Supreme Court's guidelines in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal," applying categories where quashing of proceedings is warranted due to lack of offense disclosure and abuse of process. The court concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
The quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, including the trial court's case, marks a significant affirmation of procedural fairness and evidentiary standards in criminal proceedings, especially during extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic lockdown.
Bottom line:-
Quashing of FIR under Sections 188, 269, 270, and 336 IPC due to lack of essential ingredients such as promulgation, knowledge of the order, and requisite consequences, along with absence of material evidence of infection or endangerment.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 188, 269, 270, 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 482, 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Anupam Shahu v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2944604
