FIR Quashed Due to Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Disaster Management Act
In a significant decision, the Patna High Court has quashed the FIR against retired Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Prabhat Bhushan Shrivastav, who was accused of attending a social gathering in violation of Covid-19 lockdown guidelines. The court found that the FIR did not adhere to the procedural mandates specified under Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The judgment was delivered by Justice Soni Shrivastava in the case titled "Prabhat Bhushan Shrivastav v. State of Bihar."
The incident in question dates back to April 2020, during the stringent Covid-19 lockdown period, when the petitioner, then serving as the DSP in Jehanabad, allegedly attended a fish party along with other government officials. The FIR was lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Disaster Management Act, citing violations of social distancing norms.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was filed without following the necessary procedure, which requires a complaint from specific authorities or a 30-day notice. Additionally, the counsel highlighted that similar charges against co-accused officials, including a Block Development Officer and a Circle Officer, had already been dismissed.
In its oral judgment, the court emphasized the absence of substantial evidence of criminal intent and noted that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the judicial process. The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR, citing the landmark judgment in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal," which outlines the conditions under which a court may intervene to prevent misuse of legal proceedings.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms in criminal prosecutions, especially under special legislations like the Disaster Management Act. This judgment is expected to have wider implications for cases where procedural lapses are evident, thereby reinforcing the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights against arbitrary actions.
Bottom Line :
FIR against a retired DSP for attending a social gathering during the Covid-19 lockdown was quashed, as it did not comply with the procedural requirements under Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the Court.
Statutory provision(s): Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 51(B), Section 56, Section 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Prabhat Bhushan Shrivastav v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2963387
