"Clogging Judicial System": Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Over 1000 FIRs Lodged During COVID-19 For Violating Lockdown Rules
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed over 1000 FIRs filed during COVID-19 pandemic under Section 188 IPC for violation of lockdown rules across Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "it is apt to notice that investigations in some of these cases are still underway while other matters have been sent for trial. A large number...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed over 1000 FIRs filed during COVID-19 pandemic under Section 188 IPC for violation of lockdown rules across Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "it is apt to notice that investigations in some of these cases are still underway while other matters have been sent for trial. A large number of these cases are clogging the judicial system, which is already under strain due to huge backlog. It would be expedient and in the interest of justice if the cases, which have been registered under Section 188 IPC, by the police and not by the authorized officer, are quashed by this Court."
These observations were made while hearing Suo Moto PIL registered in pursuance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in 2023 in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Anr., whereby it was directed that each High Court shall register a suo moto case with the title “In Re: Special Courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor the progress of criminal cases pending against MPs/MLAs.
The High Court in August had directed the State of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh, to file a status report regarding cases registered under Section 188 IPC and other provisions during the period of Covid-19 Pandemic, i.e. between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.
Accordingly, the list of cases were filed by Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh, have furnished the list of the cases registered under Section 188 IPC during the above-said period of Covid-19 Pandemic.
Perusing Section 195 CrPC, the bench said that, the Courts shall not take cognizance of a complaint under Section 188 IPC unless it is initiated in writing by the public servant authorized to do so. In the event, the complaint is not made by a public servant, who is authorized to do so, it would not be maintainable.
The Court further added that, "the Covid-19 Pandemic posed an enormous challenge to mankind. It was an extraordinary and unprecedented situation. The law enforcement and other agencies including those maintaining essential services, were overstretched and the general public at large was also facing great hardship as it was a compelling situation."
It is apparent that there were instances where people had to venture out of their houses in search of food, medicines or due to other emergent situations and in process, they violated the prohibitory orders issued by the authorities, the Court added.
The Court also noted that investigations in some of these cases are still underway while other matters have been sent for trial.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Counsel for respondent-Union of India.
Mr. J.S. Toor, APP, U.T., Chandigarh and Mr. Adhiraj Singh, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh.
Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana and Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate for respondent-CBI.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate, with Dr. Payal Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.5 (High Court).
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate and Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate for applicant (in CM-42-CWP-PIL-2024).
Ms. Zenith Dogra, Advocate for the applicant (in CRM-23361-2024).
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION (IN RE:DESIGNATED COURTS FOR MP'S/MLA'S) VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS