Expedite disposal of cases lodged for violation of Covid rules: HC

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Thursday directed the speedy disposal of cases which have been lodged for violations of covid-19 norms as it rejected the plea by Decathlon plea seeking quashing of FIR for opening their Preet Vihar store after 8PM on December 30, 2021

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Thursday directed the speedy disposal of cases which have been lodged for violations of covid-19 norms as it rejected the plea by Decathlon plea seeking quashing of FIR for opening their Preet Vihar store after 8PM on December 30, 2021.

HT Image

Justice Asha Menon said that it would be appropriate for the police to take quick action in all pending matters relating to violation of orders passed under the Delhi Disaster Management Act (DDMA) by filing complaints before courts.

“The offence has been made cognizable only in order to facilitate the police to take immediate action, including the arrest of a person, who is found disobeying the orders issued for maintenance of law and order and in the interest of public health. That purpose cannot be converted into one that subjects the offender to unnecessary harassment and entails violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to life, of which liberty is an inalienable facet,” the court said.

The court observed that there have been innumerable cases where people were found violating time restrictions that governed business activities and public movement, or were in public places without masks.

“These are all actionable wrongs and need to be dealt with firmly, but it must also be effective. To drag such matters over months instead of dealing with them expeditiously … have only led to complication of matters and colossal waste of time and human resources,” Justice Menon said while asserting that the lower courts ought to dispose of such matters without further delay.

Noting that the offence under which the accused are charged (section 188-disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) is in the nature of a petty offence unless combined with other serious ones, the court said they can be summarily tried.

The judge also questioned the Delhi Police for not getting the FIR against Decathlon decided even after seven months “when it ought not to have taken even seven days for disposal”.

“It is unfathomable why the offence under section 188 IPC prescribing a punishment extendable up to three months or fine up to ₹200/- or both, or when there is threat to health — as in this case due to Covid-19 pandemic — punishable with a maximum imprisonment of either nature for a period of six months or fine up to ₹1,000/- or both, cannot be disposed of in a more purposeful manner,” said the court.

With regards to Decathlon, the court directed the Preet Vihar SHO to ensure that all complaints against Decathlon are forwarded before the magistrate. It also said that the police “seem to have gone a little far” by issuing notices under CrPC section 41A demanding appearing at the police station.

“The offender, being the petitioner herein, ought to have been directed to appear before the court on a specified date and time. Instead, directions are being issued to appear at the Preet Vihar, police station, Delhi, to “ascertain facts and circumstances” relating to the investigation! When everything was reported by the head constable Om Singh, what further investigations remained, is a moot question. The purpose of such a notice rouses suspicions,” it added.

According to the FIR, a beat patrol party led by a head constable had found the store open at about 8.50 pm with 8-10 people standing near the reception. Decathlon had argued that no FIR could have been registered against it without the written complaint of the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Police argued that the complaint under CrPC section 195 has been obtained from ACP and that when a chargesheet is filed, that would also be placed on record.

The court said police were fully empowered to take action, and rejected the argument that the FIR could not have been registered.