Del HC | Petitioners arrested for loitering without mask and assaulting police constable; Court refused to quash FIR

Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., addressed a petition with regard to quashing of FIR wherein petitioner was in custody for loitering around without wearing mask and assaulting a police constable, and held that,

charges against the petitioners are unquestionably serious.

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR for offences committed under Sections 188/269/186/353/332/506 read with Section 34 of penal Code, 1860.

Rahul (Petitioner 2) was seen loitering without wearing a mask in violation of Compliance Advisory issued by Centre in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic.

On the complainant intercepting Rahul and querying him in that regard, Rahul retorted that the complainant had no right to stop him from walking in the area without a mask.

Further when the complainant with the help of a constable tried to control Rahul, he caught hold of the collar of the shirt being worn by the complainant and tore the shirt. Rahul also assaulted the constable by kicking him.

Rahul’s brother Petitioner 1 also joined him and started assaulting the complainant. Later both of them were take into custody and FIR was lodged.

Quashing of criminal proceedings by eviscerating them from their very inception, is an extreme step, to be taken with due circumspection.

Progress of the criminal law, once legitimately set in motion, should not be halted by judicial diktat, save in exceptional circumstances and with due cause.

Bench stated that, charges against the petitioners are unquestionably serious.

Breach of the lockdown restrictions, imposed by the Government, which, if permitted unchecked, may result in loss of lives of millions, and cannot be tolerated.

Court also added that the acts of petitioners are inherently inimical to public interest and may have catastrophic consequences and in these cases Courts cannot permit themselves to be carried away by the physical nature of the act as committed, unmindful of the results that would ensue, were such acts to be tolerated. [Sunder Kumar v. State, WP (Crl) No. 787 of 2020, decided on 06-05-2020]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.