Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Mar 25: High Court declined to quash an FIR registered against a man for violating the Standard Operation Procedures (SoPs) imposed by the authorities during Covid-19 pandemic and assaulting the police.
The petitioner-Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.60/2020 dated April 11, 2020 registered at Police Station, Sumbal, Bandipora.
The registration of FIR and subsequent challan before the competent court of law was the outcome of violating the Covid-19 SoPs by the petitioner and others when they were found moving/travelling in vehicles, in violation of the lockdown restrictions. When they were intercepted by the Police Patrol Party deployed for enforcement of the said lockdown restrictions and questioned, no satisfactory explanation could be furnished by them for their presence on the spot. It is further alleged that the petitioner assaulted the police party, as a result whereof an FIR under Section 188, 269 and 353 IPC, came to be registered.
Justice Shahzad Azeem while declining to quash the FIR in question said that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether there is strong suspicion or prima facie existence of the factual ingredients of the offence alleged in the chargesheet. It is not the stage to decide which statute is more appropriate.
“The Court will frame the charge under the existing chargesheet or if material does not disclose prima facie culpability of the accused then certainly it will result in discharge of the accused, but in any case, the Court cannot rewrite the chargesheet. For the foregoing reasons, no case for interference is made out, accordingly, petition is dismissed”, the court concluded
The court directed the registry that the record of court below be transmitted forthwith and the trial Court shall commence the trial without further delay. The court however, has made it clear that the observations made are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. “The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any of these observations and shall decide the case independently on its own merits in accordance with law”, reads the judgment.
The petitioner-Ganaie raised the grouse regarding violation of the provisions of Disaster Management Act and Pandemic Disease Act. The court however said that neither the chargesheet has been presented under the Act of 2005 nor under any of the provisions of Act of 1897, therefore, the petitioner cannot have a valid and legal justification to question the legality of chargesheet as same having been presented in violation of these statutes.
The court said that it is the discretion of the Investigating Officer based on the material collected during investigation and on filing of the chargesheet, the competent Court has ample jurisdiction to examine the material collected during investigation to form an opinion as to whether ingredients of the alleged act of omission and commission, are made out or not, but in any case, the accused cannot insist for presentation of chargesheet under the penal statute of his choice, when such acts are punishable under two different statutes.
“Going by the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation, it appears that in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19 Pandemic, the restrictions under Section 144 Cr.P.C came to be imposed by the District Magistrate, Bandipora, but the petitioner along with co-accused were found roaming in disobedience to the said restrictions order thereby alleged to have facilitated the spread of the disease by their negligent acts”, Justice Azeem recorded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
