'Trial Would Be Futile Exercise': Orissa High Court Quashes Case Against Engineer For Not Wearing Mask During Pandemic

The Orissa High Court has quashed criminal case against a 39-year-old engineer for riding motor cycle without putting on helmet and not wearing mask during COVID-19 pandemic in the year 2020.

Stressing on the intention behind the legislation of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that allowing the trial to be held in the case would be a 'futile exercise' and accordingly observed –

“As it is clear from Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 that the said legislation holds the field of enforcement for a limited period of time, i.e., during the continuation of the pandemic. It is also notable that the intention of this legislation is to prevent the outbreak of pandemic diseases, rather than using its provisions for a penal purpose.”

Background of the Case

The petitioner, aged about 39 years, is an engineer working in a leading IT company. On 22.04.2020, during the initial days of pandemic COVID-19, the petitioner was caught riding a motor cycle without wearing mask and helmet. When the patrolling team found him flouting the norms, it tried to detain him but the petitioner did not respond and started fleeing away from the place.

It was further alleged that while he was trying to escape from the spot, his vehicle slipped on the road and he received bleeding injuries. He is also stated to have abused the patrolling team with slangs for which an FIR was registered against him under Sections 353/341/323/294/188 of the IPC read with Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1954.

Being aggrieved by such initiation of criminal proceeding, the petitioner approached the High Court with a prayer to quash the FIR as well as the entire pending proceedings.

Court's Observations

After perusal of the FIR, the Court was of the view that the offences registered against the petitioner do not involve moral turpitude nor those tend to threaten the public order or affect the very fabric of the society. Rather, the alleged crime was committed by him during the prevalence of the pandemic when general stress level of people was recorded to be high. The Single Bench further held that there was no mens rea involved in the commission of the crime, rather the unfortunate episode was a culmination of stress.

The Bench opined that the petitioner has in fact violated the traffic rules by riding the motor cycle without helmet and without wearing mask as mandatorily required during the pandemic and the authority is also free to impose a reasonable amount of fine upon the petitioner for flouting the statutory norms.

“Apart from the last portion of the F.I.R. that he abused the police officials in slang languages, the rest of the F.I.R., in fact, does not attract any offence, as there is no mens rea involved. During the pandemic period, the stress and anxiety suffered by every citizen is quite well-reflected in the conduct of the petitioner and cannot be read into a criminal overt act attributed to him,” it held.

Above all, the Court remarked that all the witnesses in this case are police officials and the statements made by these 'interested witnesses' under Section 161, CrPC are merely the reiteration of the allegation made in the FIR.

“Regard being had to the fact that the incident had taken place during the lockdown period, there is no ingredient made out insofar as the penal offences are concerned. However, in regard to the offence under Section 3 of the Epidemic Disease, 1897 is concerned, it has lost its force now as the pandemic is over,” it added.

Hence, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was of the considered view that allowing the trial to continue would superfluously result in wastage of valuable time and resources of the Court.

Accordingly, the Court deemed it proper to quash the FIR and the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner particularly considering the settlement reached by the parties concerned.

Case Title: Priya Ranjan Nayak v. State of Orissa & Anr.

Case No: CRLMC No. 3943 of 2023

Date of Judgment: October 29, 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate along with Mr. S. Das, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, Additional Government Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 87

Click Here To Read/Download Order