Delhi HC turns down lockdown violating duo's plea

The two men, who are brothers, had approached the Delhi High Court alleging atrocities committed against them by the police, which had said in the FIR that they were roaming around without face masks during the lockdown imposed to contain the spread of Covid-19 virus and had even roughed up the police officers.Hari Shankar dismissed the petition, saying, "Suffice it to state that, on the material on record, there's no case for quashing of the FIR, and thereby eviscerating the proceedings against the petitioners, at this nascent stage, can be said to have been made out." The two men had claimed in their plea that on the evening of April 20, they were forcibly picked up from their residence and were taken to a police booth in Basai Darapur in West Delhi by the police, where they were beaten up and illegally detained.When asked about his conduct, Rahul called his brother Sunder to the spot and they both started beating up the police officers after which an FIR was lodged against them, the court noted.During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel, Varun Tyagi, argued that there were marked inconsistencies in the version of the police, saying that while the FIR said that Sunder had returned to his home, the case of the prosecution is that he was apprehended from the spot.

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a petition filed by two men who were roaming around without masks amid the lockdown, has held that the charges against them amounted to "unquestionably serious breach of the lockdown restrictions".

The two men, who are brothers, had approached the Delhi High Court alleging atrocities committed against them by the police, which had said in the FIR that they were roaming around without face masks during the lockdown imposed to contain the spread of Covid-19 virus and had even roughed up the police officers.

"The charges against the petitioners amount to unquestionably serious breach of the lockdown restrictions imposed by the government, which, if permitted unchecked, may result in loss of lives of millions, and cannot be tolerated for an instance. The acts of the petitioners, if true, are inherently inimical to pubic and societal interest as a whole," the court said on Wednesday.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the single judge bench presided over by Justice C. Hari Shankar dismissed the petition, saying, "Suffice it to state that, on the material on record, there's no case for quashing of the FIR, and thereby eviscerating the proceedings against the petitioners, at this nascent stage, can be said to have been made out."

The two men had claimed in their plea that on the evening of April 20, they were forcibly picked up from their residence and were taken to a police booth in Basai Darapur in West Delhi by the police, where they were beaten up and illegally detained. They also claimed that a false case was later registered against them.

However, the FIR claimed that one of the petitioners, Rahul, who was reportedly a "bad character" of the area, was seen loitering in the area without wearing a mask, in violation of the compliance advisory issued by the Central government in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak.

When the police intercepted Rahul and questioned him, he retorted that they had no right to stop him from walking in the area without wearing a mask. When a police officer tried to control Rahul, he reportedly caught him by his collar and tore his shirt. He also allegedly kicked a constable by the name of Pravin.

When asked about his conduct, Rahul called his brother Sunder to the spot and they both started beating up the police officers after which an FIR was lodged against them, the court noted.

During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel, Varun Tyagi, argued that there were marked inconsistencies in the version of the police, saying that while the FIR said that Sunder had returned to his home, the case of the prosecution is that he was apprehended from the spot.

Placing reliance on the MLC of the petitioners, Tyagi said that as per the version of Sunder, he was bitten by a cop. "The case is of assault by the police on the petitioners, and not vice versa," the counsel said.

The court then noted that quashing of criminal proceedings by eviscerating them from their very inception is an extreme step, to be taken with due circumspection. "The powers of this court under Section 482 of quashing criminal proceedings, though extremely wide, are to be exercised with a great degree of caution," the court said.

Noting the seriousness of the offences committed as the same may affect the society at large, the court said, "While this sole factor may, even by itself, be sufficient to have merited dismissal of this petition, the status report further states that the allegations in the FIR are supported by the MLC of the complainant," the court observed.

Following the observations, the petitioners' counsel urged the court to examine the CCTV footage from the area, which, according to him, would vouchsafe the innocence of his clients.

Responding to which, the court noted that it cannot enter into detailed appreciation of evidence and dismissed the plea noting that "the case is at a nascent stage".

( With inputs from IANS )