Bhaskar Revealed: More than 30 thousand cases of lockdown violation were dismissed in the very first hearing due to a mistake of the police

Challans were deducted on the notification of the commissioner, but the legal process was not completed.

During the first and second wave of Corona, 30 thousand cases of violation of Kovid guidelines in lockdown were dismissed by the court in the very first hearing, as the magistrate did not take cognizance of them. These cases were registered under sections 188, 269, 270, 271 of the IPC and section 3 of the Epidemic Act 2005.

The police commissioner and the district collector should have complained about these cases to the court in writing, but they did not do so. Police presented direct challans. Under Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), complaints of cases registered under non-cognizable offenses have to be made in writing to the same public servant in the court, which issues the notification of the guidelines in emergency.

In these cases, the Commissioner of Police and the Collector had issued the notifications of Kovid Guidelines as public servants under 188, 269, 270, 271, so they should have made a written complaint to the court. After this, the court can take cognizance of the police report under 195 (1) of CrPC and proceed with the action.

Collector or police commissioner should have registered a case
Advocate Piyush Mangukia told that there are two types of offenses, one cognizable and the other non cognisable. In non cognisable offences, the police cannot directly register the case itself. Its challan procedure is prescribed under Section 195 of CrPC. A case was registered under section 188 of IPC for violation of Kovid lockdown. This section is non cognisable. In which the police itself did not have the right to register the case. The Police Commissioner in the city and the Collector in the rural issued notifications related to night curfew. Therefore, only the collector or commissioner can file a case.

The officer who issued the notification had to appear in the court
The Court shall take cognizance of any offense (and abetment, attempt or criminal conspiracy to commit such offence) committed under sections 172 to 188 of the IPC, 1860 under section 195 (1) (a) of the CrPC, 1973 When a written complaint is filed in the Court by the public servant concerned or the officer subordinate to him. Since the night curfew notifications were issued by the Collector-Police Commissioner. So he should have presented the challan himself. The police did not comply with this provision. The officer who issued the notification, instead of giving a written complaint in the court, the police directly presented the challan. Due to this the court did not take cognizance and prima facie dismissed the case.

Action cannot proceed by ignoring CrPC 195
The magistrate, while canceling the case in the very first hearing, said in his order that after reading the case file filed by the police, it appears that sections 269, 270, 271 of the IPC and sections of the Epidemic Act with the intention of violating the notification of night curfew. 3 was also installed. Therefore, they cannot be treated as separate from section 188. Action cannot proceed by ignoring CrPC 195. In such a situation, taking cognizance of the offenses of IPC 188, 269 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Act on the basis of the charge sheet, the action is not worth pursuing.

Violation of prescribed procedure as per CrPC- 195(1)