Relief granted as court rules no evidence of negligence or deliberate violation despite delayed reporting to COVID centre
Background of the Case
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a doctor during the COVID-19 lockdown for allegedly failing to report to a designated COVID care centre after testing positive.
The case dates back to 2020, when strict pandemic protocols were in place under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Court Order and Key Observations
A single-judge bench led by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke ruled that no prima facie offence was made out against the doctor.
The court stated that although the doctor was instructed to report to a COVID centre, he did eventually comply and reached the facility later the same day. Therefore, the essential ingredients required to invoke Sections 188, 269, and 270 of the IPC were not satisfied.
FIR Details and Charges
The FIR (Crime No. 245/2020) was registered under:
- Section 188 – Disobedience of a public servant’s order
- Section 269 – Negligent act likely to spread infection
- Section 270 – Malignant act likely to spread infection
Additionally, Sections 3 and 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act were also invoked.
The complaint was filed by a medical practitioner associated with the 108 ambulance service after the doctor initially failed to respond when authorities attempted to bring him to a COVID centre in Buldhana.
Arguments Presented
The doctor’s counsel argued that:
- The doctor had eventually reported to the COVID centre on his own.
- There was no evidence that his actions led to the spread of infection.
- No negligence or malicious intent could be established.
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that:
- The doctor disobeyed a lawful order by not reporting immediately.
- His movement could have posed a risk of spreading infection.
Court’s Reasoning
After reviewing witness statements and investigation records, the court found:
- The doctor did report to the quarantine centre, albeit later.
- There was no evidence of negligent or intentional conduct that could spread infection.
- Mere delay in compliance does not automatically attract criminal liability under the cited provisions.
Final Verdict
The court concluded that none of the offences under Sections 188, 269, or 270 of the IPC were applicable in this case. Accordingly, the FIR was quashed to the extent of the present applicant, granting relief to the doctor.
Why This Ruling Matters
This judgment reinforces that:
- Criminal charges require clear evidence of intent or negligence.
- Mere procedural delays, without harmful consequences, may not constitute a criminal offence.
- Courts continue to scrutinize COVID-era cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
