Allowed

Ganga Ram Hospital v. State

Delhi HC20 Sept 2024W.P.(CRL)/921/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of FIR registered against a hospital for allegedly not using the ICMR-mandated RT-PCR App during COVID-19. The Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process, imposing costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner payable to specified funds.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 188/2020 and consequential proceedings quashed subject to payment of ₹50,000 as costs within four weeks

Ganga Ram Hospital Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~69

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** + W.P.(CRL) 921/2020 GANGA RAM HOSPITAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Mr. Manu Bajaj & Ms. Muskaan Gopal, Advocates. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASCCRL for the State. SI Awadesh Narayan (P.S. Rajinder Nagar).

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶4

O R D E R % 20.09.2024

¶5

The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 188/2020 dated 05.06.2020 registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar for offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC’ ), including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶6

Briefly stated, the FIR in the present case was registered consequent to the alleged disobedience of the guidelines for COVID-19 testing, issued by the ICMR. The guidelines dated 18.05.2020 stipulated a specific requirement to the effect that all testing of COVID-19 suspected cases, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, were to be conducted “by real -time RT-PCR test only”. The RT-PCR App, which forms the fulcrum of the controversy in the present case, was developed by ICMR, through the National Informatics Centre (NIC), to enable the

¶7

W.P.(CRL) 921/2020

¶8

Page 1 of 3

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 12:32:18

¶11

collection centres to enter the details of the Specimen Referral Form, while sending the swab samples to the recognised labs. 3. Consequent thereto, Office Order No. 174/DGHS/PHWIV/COVID-19/RTPCR App/2020/2625-69, dated 06.05.2020 was issued by the DGHS, GNCTD, directing that all lab collection and test requisitions for COVID-19 were to be processed only through the said App. 4. On 03.06.2020, Order No. F.50(1)/PART FILEIII/2020/IDSP/CDMO/CENTRAL : 181 was issued by the DGHS, in lieu of apparent disobedience of the office order dated 06.05.2020 since the petitioner had not started using the RT-PCR App. In terms of Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, any person disobeying any regulations made under the Act was deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC.

¶12

This Court, vide judgment dated 22.06.2020 in CRL.M.A No. 7661 of 2020 allowed the application filed by the petitioner seeking stay on the proceedings arising out of the subject FIR. It is clear that no intention can be attributed on the petitioner for alleged disobedience of the office order.

¶13

Concededly, the FIR was registered way back in the year 2020 during the onset of COVID-19 and the allegations made have lost its significance. 7. Without going into the facts whether any offence was committed, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to avoid any unnecessary abuse of the process of law and quash the proceedings arising out of the present FIR. I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be secured if the petitioner is put to cost.

¶14

Page 2 of 3

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 921/2020

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 12:32:18

¶17

In view of the above, the FIR No. 188/2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the petitioner hospital paying a sum of ₹50,000/- (₹20,000/- to Delhi Police Welfare Fund, ₹20,000/- to Bar Council of Delhi 'Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Fund and ₹10,000/- to Chhatravas Chandra Arya Vidya Mandir, Des Raj Campus, C Block, East of Kailash, New Delhi), within a period of four weeks from the date.

¶18

Let the proof of deposit of cost be deposited with the concerned SHO.

¶19

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶20

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶21

SEPTEMBER 20, 2024

‘Aman’

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(CRL) 921/2020

Ganga Ram Hospital v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram Hospital v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopi Nisha Mallah Vs State NCT of Delhi

Abdul Mubeen & Ors. Vs State of N C T of Delhi and Others

Ritesh Chugh Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Aas Mohd @ Ashu Vs State of the NCT of Delhi

Rajvir Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shivani Kaul Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indermohan Singh Vs State Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Mohit Kumar Lohia @ Monu Vs the State and Anr.

Ekta Rai Goel Vs Gautam Kapoor

Drug Inspector Vs M/S Vocerene Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Sudarshan Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Tarun Yadav Vs Vikas Dureja

Mayank Bansal Vs the State( NCT of Delhi)

Atul Pundhir Vs M/S the Delhi Group & Anr.