Allowed

Robinson v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/789/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed an FIR under IPC and Epidemic Diseases Act registered for breach of lockdown mask restrictions. Noting no adverse consequences and a Government policy to not pursue such cases, the court held continuance was not warranted. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned First Information Report is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Robinson Vs The Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.789 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.789 of 2022 in Crl.M.P(MD)No.570 of 2022

¶7

1.Robinson

¶8

2.Reegan

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State Rep.by

¶12

The Inspector of Police,

¶13

Tuticorin Central Police Station,

¶14

Tuticorin.

¶15

(In Cr.No.134 of 2021) ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶16

2.Senthil Suresh ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶17

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the F.I.R in Crime No.134 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Malaiyendran

¶19

For R1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.134 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶22

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2021 when the second respondent was on duty, the petitioners came in the motorcycle without wearing the Mask and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the petitioners said to have quarreled with the defacto complainant. Hence, the FIR was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 269, 283 of IPC and Section 3 of Epidermic Decease Act, 76(2) of the Tamilnadu Public Health Act, 1939.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

1/2

¶25

Crl.O.P(MD)No.789 of 2022

¶26

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent.

¶27

4.I will not fault the respondent for having registered the impugned First Information Report. But no adverse consequence ensued. It is seen that the Government has taken a policy decision not to pursue the cases registered in the wake of breach of lock down restrictions. In these circumstances, continuance of the impugned prosecution is not warranted.

¶28

5.Therefore, the impugned First Information Report is quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

vsd

¶32

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶33

¶34

1.The Inspector of Police, Tuticorin Central Police Station, Tuticorin.

¶35

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.V. MALAIYENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-18003[F] dated 12/04/2022 )

¶37

Crl.O.P(MD)No.789 of 2022 in Crl.M.P(MD)No.570 of 2022 11.04.2022

¶38

RK(28/04/2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

2/2

Robinson v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robinson v. The Inspector of Police

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

Arun Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Venkatesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Panneer Selvam Vs The Inspector of Police

Manoj Kumar.R Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Murugesh Pandian Vs The Inspector of Police

Alagesan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police