Anita Sawhney v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC18 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./4974/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 4974/2025 | Anita Sawhney v. State of NCT of Delhi | Delhi HC (Sanjeev Narula J), 18.08.2025 | quashing of COVID-era FIR 84/2020 and chargesheet (Sections 188/269/271 IPC; Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act 1897) | CDR-analysis-only evidence | Section 269 IPC requires infection/negligent-malicious intent | Section 188 IPC requires specific promulgated order served | Section 271 IPC and Epidemic Diseases Act unsustainable without served quarantine order | abuse of process | petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 allowed | Section 41A notice per Arnesh Kumar | sanction Section 195 CrPC | P.S. New Friends Colony.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned FIR No. 84/2020, the chargesheet filed thereunder, and all consequential proceedings. ¶¶33

Anita Sawhney Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of impugned FIR No. 84/2020, the chargesheet filed thereunder, and all consequential proceedings.

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings arising from FIR No. 84/2020 and the chargesheet filed thereunder ought to be quashed on the ground that the basic ingredients of the offences invoked (Sections 188, 269, 271 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897) were never established, making continuation an abuse of process. +2 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

The FIR was registered at the height of the pandemic amid overzealous enforcement; with the basic ingredients of the invoked offences unestablished, the petitioner of clean antecedents facing prosecution for over five years on doubtful evidence, allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing of the FIR, chargesheet and all consequential proceedings.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

An offence under Section 269 IPC requires establishment that the accused was infected with, or knowingly exposed others to, a disease dangerous to life, coupled with negligent or malicious intent to spread it; since the chargesheet contains no such foundational facts (no allegation of COVID-19 positivity or suspected carriage), continuation of proceedings under Section 269 IPC is wholly unwarranted.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

For Section 188 IPC to apply, disobedience of a specific order duly promulgated by a lawfully empowered public servant must be established; the record discloses no specific quarantine order served upon the petitioner, only general prohibitory orders and lists maintained by authorities.ratio¶¶31
Invocation of Section 271 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 cannot be sustained in the absence of proof of a quarantine order duly served on the petitioner.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.), by order dated 18.08.2025 in CRL.M.C. 4974/2025, allowed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and quashed FIR No. 84/2020 (P.S. New Friends Colony, registered 05.04.2020), the chargesheet dated 11.06.2020 under Sections 188, 269, 271 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and all consequent proceedings alleging violation of COVID-19 home-quarantine directions. The prosecution rested solely on CDR analysis suggesting movement outside residence; the chargesheet did not allege the petitioner was COVID-19 positive or a suspected carrier, so the foundational facts for Section 269 IPC were absent; no specific quarantine order was shown to have been duly served on her, defeating Sections 188 and 271 IPC and the Epidemic Diseases Act charge. Continuing the five-year-old prosecution of a person of clean antecedents would be an abuse of process. During investigation a Section 41A Cr.P.C notice had been served in compliance with Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 SC 2756), sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C obtained and witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4974/2025, CRL.M.A. 21580/2025

¶4

ANITA SAWHNEY .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Uday Singh and Mr. Syed Hasan, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with Mr. Rahul Kumar, PS-New Friends Colony and Mr. Nawal Singh, ASI, PS-Kalyanpuri.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 18.08.2025

¶11

The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks quashing of chargesheet dated 11^th June, 2020 registered in FIR No. 84/2020¹ under Sections 188/269/271 of Indian Penal Code, 1860² and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 registered at P.S. New Friends Colony and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

¶12

2.1. On 5^th April, 2020, HC Nawal Singh along with Ct. Bijender were carrying out verification of persons directed to remain in home quarantine after returning to India post 15^th February, 2020, in terms of the prohibitory

¶13

1 “the impugned FIR”

¶14

2 “IPC”

¶15

CRL.M.C. 4974/2025 Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 21/08/2025 at 12:23:56

¶18

orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973³ and the Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi. A list of such persons was circulated by the concerned authority. As per that list, the Petitioner was required to remain in home quarantine at her residence. However, on verification, it was found that she had allegedly left her residence in violation of the said directions. This was purportedly confirmed both by local inquiry and analysis of her mobile phone Call Detail Records.⁴ On this basis, the impugned FIR was registered. 2.2. During investigation, the Petitioner was interrogated and served notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C in compliance with the directions laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar .⁵ 2.3. Sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C was obtained from the competent authority, and witnesses were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 2.4. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Sections 188, 269, 271 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act. The matter is pending trial and charges are yet to be framed. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR by officials of P.S. New Friends Colony, who have acted in excess of their authority. It is argued that when the Petitioner returned from the United States of America, she was thoroughly screened by the airport health authorities, found to be asymptomatic and permitted to return home without any direction of mandatory quarantine, in terms of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ prevailing notifications. It is urged that the chargesheet does not disclose that the Petitioner ever tested positive

¶19

3 “Cr.P.C”

¶20

4 “CDR”

¶21

CRL.M.C. 4974/2025 Page 2 of 4

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 21/08/2025 at 12:23:56

¶24

for COVID-19 or that she was even suspected of carrying the infection, let alone posing any likelihood of spreading it. The entire prosecution case, counsel argues, rests solely upon the inference drawn from the Petitioner’s mobile CDR location chart, which allegedly showed her movement outside her residence. However, in fact, the Petitioner never stepped out of her residence during the relevant period.

¶25

Per contra , Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, opposes the petition. He submits that the CDR analysis clearly establishes that the Petitioner had left her residence in violation of the prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C. According to him, in the backdrop of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, such conduct amounted to exposing the public at large to unnecessary risk, thereby endangering public health and justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings against her. 5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the material on record. The prosecution’s case is premised primarily on the allegation that the Petitioner left her residence in violation of quarantine directions, supported only by the CDR analysis of her mobile phone. Significantly, the chargesheet does not allege that the Petitioner was ever found COVID-19 positive or even suspected of being a carrier of the infection. For an offence under Section 269 IPC, it is essential to establish that the accused was infected with, or knowingly exposed others to, a disease dangerous to life, coupled with negligent or malicious intent to spread the same. In absence of such foundational facts, continuation of proceedings under Section 269 IPC would be wholly unwarranted.

¶26

Likewise, for Section 188 IPC to apply, the prosecution must establish

¶27

5 AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2756

¶28

CRL.M.C. 4974/2025 Page 3 of 4

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 21/08/2025 at 12:23:56

¶31

disobedience of a specific order duly promulgated by a lawfully empowered public servant. The record does not disclose that any specific order of quarantine was served upon the Petitioner; rather, reliance is placed on general prohibitory orders and lists maintained by the authorities. Similarly, invocation of Section 271 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act cannot be sustained in absence of proof of quarantine order duly served on the Petitioner.

¶32

It must be borne in mind that the impugned FIR was registered on 5^th April, 2020, at the height of the pandemic when there was widespread uncertainty, heightened fear and overzealous enforcement of preventive measures. The Petitioner is a person with clean antecedents and has been facing the ordeal of criminal prosecution for more than 5 years on the strength of doubtful evidence. In these circumstances and particularly in view of the failure to establish the basic ingredients of the offences invoked, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law.

¶33

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No. 84/2020, the chargesheet filed thereunder and all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed.

¶34

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶35

AUGUST 18, 2025 nk

¶36

CRL.M.C. 4974/2025 Page 4 of 4

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 21/08/2025 at 12:23:56

Anita Sawhney v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Sawhney v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj @ Dheeru Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Nikhil Mehta Vs State & Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Brijesh Singh Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Amanpreet Singh Malhotra Vs State of Delhi and Anr.

State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs Enamul Miya Alias Rinku and Anr.