Police Booked Man for Taking a Walk on Fourth Day of Lockdown, but Could Not Prove He Knew of the Restriction; Delhi High Court Quashes First Information Report
Facts
On 28 March 2020, during the nationwide lockdown imposed to contain COVID-19, Assistant Sub-Inspector Sarjeet Singh and Constable Sudhir were performing picket duty at Aruna Asaf Ali Marg in Delhi.
At approximately the fourth day of the nationwide lockdown, the police officers saw Anupam Shahu walking from Kishangarh towards Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The police stopped him and asked why he was outside. According to the First Information Report, Anupam Shahu said that he was unable to pass his time while sitting at home and had therefore stepped out for a walk.
On the basis of this statement alone, the police alleged that he had violated:
- Ministry of Home Affairs Notification Number U-11036/3/1978(1) UTL dated 1 July 1978; and
- Order Number 2040-2140/R/Assistant Commissioner of Police/Sub-Division Safdarjung Enclave dated 24 March 2020.
First Information Report Number 105 of 2020 was registered at Police Station Kishangarh under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant.
Anupam Shahu was immediately arrested and subsequently released on police bail.
During the investigation, the police added allegations under:
- Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code for negligently doing an act likely to spread infection of a dangerous disease;
- Section 270 for malignantly doing an act likely to spread infection; and
- Section 336 for committing a rash or negligent act endangering human life or personal safety.
The chargesheet was based exclusively on the statements of three police officials:
- Assistant Sub-Inspector Sarjeet Singh, who was both the complainant and Investigating Officer;
- Constable Sudhir; and
- Head Constable Brahm, the Duty Officer.
No independent public witness was examined. Anupam Shahu was never medically examined or tested for COVID-19. The prosecution did not allege that he was COVID-19 positive, symptomatic or even suspected of carrying the infection.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a complaint dated 2 June 2020 under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requesting the Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance of the alleged violation under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 24 May 2022, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and summoned Anupam Shahu.
Since the matter was triable as a summons case, with no separate stage for framing of charge, he approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the First Information Report, chargesheet and all consequential proceedings.
Issues
- Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was maintainable after the chargesheet had been filed and cognizance had been taken.
- Whether the alleged lockdown order dated 24 March 2020 had been duly promulgated or publicly communicated.
- Whether the prosecution had established that Anupam Shahu knew about the specific order.
- Whether merely walking alone on a public road during lockdown constituted disobedience punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether his conduct caused or was likely to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury or danger to human life, health or safety.
- Whether Sections 269 and 270 could be invoked without any allegation or evidence that the petitioner was infected with COVID-19.
- Whether walking alone on a road amounted to a rash or negligent act endangering human life under Section 336.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim that he had stepped out for a medical follow-up was supported by contemporaneous medical evidence.
- Whether continuation of the prosecution more than six years after the incident amounted to an abuse of the court process.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Anupam Shahu
Anupam Shahu disputed the statement attributed to him in the First Information Report that he had left home merely because he was bored.
He submitted that:
- He had been suffering from severe back pain radiating to both lower limbs.
- He had stepped out for a medical follow-up.
- A medical certificate dated 21 March 2020, issued one week before the incident, supported his explanation.
- The lockdown guidelines did not impose a complete prohibition on movement.
- Movement for essential purposes, including medical requirements, remained permitted.
Regarding Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, he argued that:
- The order dated 24 March 2020 was not annexed to the chargesheet.
- The First Information Report did not state how the order had been promulgated.
- There was no evidence of its publication, proclamation, affixation or circulation.
- There was no allegation that he had actual knowledge of the order.
- The prosecution could not presume knowledge merely because a lockdown was in force.
- His solitary presence on a public road did not cause obstruction, annoyance, injury or danger to anyone.
Regarding Sections 269 and 270, the petitioner submitted that:
- He was never tested for COVID-19.
- The prosecution did not allege that he was infected.
- There was no allegation that he knew or had reason to believe that he was infected.
- In the absence of infection or knowledge, he could not have committed an act likely to spread the disease.
He also challenged Section 336 on the ground that the prosecution had not identified any person whose life or safety was endangered by his conduct.
The petitioner further argued that:
- The complaint required under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was defective and belated.
- The complainant had acted as the Investigating Officer in his own case.
- No independent public witness was joined.
- The statement of the other police witness merely repeated the contents of the police report.
- The procedure under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been bypassed.
Respondent’s Arguments
State
The State argued that Anupam Shahu was found walking on a public road while COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were in force.
It submitted that:
- His explanation to the police was unsatisfactory.
- He had violated the Ministry of Home Affairs notification and the order dated 24 March 2020.
- Registration of the First Information Report under Section 188 was justified.
- The subsequent addition of Sections 269, 270 and 336 was based upon his alleged violation of the lockdown restrictions.
Pursuant to the High Court’s directions, the State verified the petitioner’s medical documents.
The State acknowledged that the medical certificate dated 21 March 2020, issued by Doctor Prakash Kumar Mishra of Neuron Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, was genuine.
However, some older prescriptions said to have been issued by Care and Cure Clinic could not be verified because the clinic was no longer operating at the stated address.
Analysis of the Law
Power to Quash After Filing of Chargesheet
The High Court first clarified that filing of a chargesheet or taking of cognizance does not prevent the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Where the allegations and evidence do not constitute an offence, the High Court can quash the proceedings even after:
- Completion of the investigation;
- Filing of the chargesheet;
- Taking of cognizance; or
- Issuance of summons.
An unfounded First Information Report becomes a more serious abuse of process when it develops into a criminal prosecution.
Ingredients of Section 188
The Court identified the following essential ingredients of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code:
- There must be an order promulgated by a lawfully empowered public servant.
- The accused must have knowledge of that order.
- The accused must disobey the order.
- The disobedience must cause or tend to cause a legally recognised consequence.
- That consequence must involve obstruction, annoyance, injury, danger to human life, health or safety, or the likelihood of a riot or affray.
An intention to cause harm is not necessary. However, knowledge of the order remains indispensable.
Meaning of Promulgation
“Promulgation” requires an order to be made known openly and publicly. It may be communicated through:
- Publication in the Official Gazette;
- Public proclamation;
- Public announcement;
- Affixation;
- Newspaper publication;
- Media circulation; or
- Any other public mode reasonably capable of communicating the order.
Private information or the mere existence of an order does not establish promulgation.
Absence of Knowledge
The order dated 24 March 2020 was not filed with the chargesheet.
Neither the First Information Report nor the chargesheet stated:
- How the order had been publicly announced;
- Where it had been published;
- Whether it had been affixed in the locality;
- Whether it had been published in newspapers or electronic media;
- Whether the petitioner had seen or heard the order; or
- How he acquired actual knowledge of its contents.
The Court held that knowledge could not be presumed “in a vacuum”, particularly on the fourth day of an unprecedented nationwide lockdown.
No Prohibited Consequence
Section 188 does not punish every technical violation of a public order. The disobedience must cause or be likely to cause one of the consequences specified in the provision.
Anupam Shahu was a solitary pedestrian. The prosecution did not allege that he:
- Obstructed any public servant;
- Annoyed or injured anyone;
- Came into contact with a crowd;
- Created a public disturbance;
- Caused a riot or affray; or
- Endangered human life, health or safety.
Mere presence on a public road, without any overt act producing or threatening a prohibited consequence, did not constitute an offence under Section 188.
Medical Exception
The lockdown did not impose an absolute prohibition on all movement. Movement for essential purposes, including medical requirements, was permitted.
The medical certificate dated 21 March 2020 recorded that the petitioner was suffering from severe back pain radiating to both lower limbs. The State verified that certificate and found it genuine.
The Court held that the inability to verify much older prescriptions did not discredit the contemporaneous certificate. The fact that a neighbourhood clinic could not be found at the same address six years later proved nothing against the petitioner.
Sections 269 and 270
Sections 269 and 270 require an act likely to spread an infectious disease dangerous to life.
In the context of COVID-19, the prosecution needed at least some allegation or material showing that:
- The accused was infected;
- The accused knew or had reason to believe that he was infected; and
- The accused nevertheless performed an act likely to spread the infection.
Anupam Shahu was never tested for COVID-19. There was no allegation that he was infected, symptomatic or suspected of infection.
Walking alone on a road, without evidence of carrying an infectious disease, did not attract Sections 269 or 270.
Section 336
Section 336 punishes a rash or negligent act that endangers human life or the personal safety of others.
The chargesheet did not identify a single person whose life or safety was placed at risk. The foundational requirement of actual or likely endangerment was therefore absent.
Section 195 Objection
Once the Court concluded that the basic ingredients of Section 188 were absent, it found it unnecessary to decide whether the Assistant Commissioner of Police’s complaint complied with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court expressly refrained from deciding that question.
Fairness of Investigation
The Court also found it unnecessary to decide the petitioner’s objections that:
- The complainant and Investigating Officer were the same person;
- No public witness was examined;
- The police witness merely repeated the initial report; and
- Section 41A procedure was bypassed.
These objections would ordinarily involve the fairness of the investigation and could be examined at trial. However, no trial was necessary because the alleged offences were not made out even on the prosecution’s own case.
Precedent Analysis
Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State, National Capital Territory of Delhi
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure continues even after the chargesheet has been filed.
A baseless First Information Report does not become immune from quashing merely because the investigation has concluded or cognizance has been taken.
Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. State
The Delhi High Court held that actual knowledge of the public servant’s order is an essential requirement of Section 188.
A First Information Report must at least indicate that the accused knew of the order and knowingly disobeyed it. A general notification alone does not establish such knowledge.
Mohd. Anwar v. State, National Capital Territory of Delhi
A Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court quashed several First Information Reports arising from similarly worded lockdown orders issued by Assistant Commissioners of Police in March 2020.
The decision explained that an order must be publicly promulgated and that its existence alone does not establish knowledge.
State v. Tugla
The Allahabad High Court explained that “promulgate” means to make an order publicly known through an open declaration, publication, dissemination or proclamation.
Private knowledge or private communication does not constitute promulgation.
Hla Shwe v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed COVID-19-related proceedings where there was no material showing that the accused were infected or capable of spreading the disease.
This principle was subsequently followed by the Delhi High Court.
Sidak Singh Sandhu v. Union Territory of Chandigarh
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that failure to test the accused for COVID-19 was fatal to allegations of spreading infection because there was no basis for concluding that the accused was carrying an infectious disease.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
The Supreme Court identified categories in which a High Court may quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
The present case fell within:
- Category One: where the allegations, even if accepted entirely, do not constitute an offence; and
- Category Three: where the allegations and evidence collected do not disclose the commission of any offence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Delhi High Court relied on the following considerations:
- The alleged lockdown order was not annexed to the chargesheet.
- The prosecution did not explain how the order was promulgated.
- There was no allegation that Anupam Shahu knew of the order.
- Knowledge could not automatically be presumed merely because the lockdown had begun.
- The petitioner was found walking alone and committed no overt act.
- No obstruction, annoyance, injury, riot or danger was alleged.
- Medical movement was not prohibited during lockdown.
- The petitioner’s medical certificate was contemporaneous and genuine.
- He was never tested for COVID-19.
- The prosecution did not allege that he was infected, symptomatic or suspected of infection.
- Without infection and knowledge, Sections 269 and 270 could not apply.
- No person was identified as having been endangered by his conduct.
- Section 336 was therefore inapplicable.
- Filing of the chargesheet and issuance of summons did not prevent the High Court from exercising powers under Section 482.
- Continuation of the prosecution more than six years after the incident would amount to an abuse of the process of court.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that, even if the prosecution’s entire version was accepted, the essential ingredients of Sections 188, 269, 270 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code were absent.
The Court found no material establishing:
- Public promulgation of the lockdown order;
- Anupam Shahu’s knowledge of that order;
- A legally recognised consequence arising from its alleged disobedience;
- Infection or suspected infection with COVID-19;
- Knowledge of carrying an infectious disease;
- Likelihood of spreading the disease; or
- Endangerment of any person’s life or safety.
Continuing the prosecution more than six years after the incident would therefore amount to an abuse of the criminal process.
The Court consequently:
- Allowed the petition;
- Quashed First Information Report Number 105 of 2020;
- Quashed the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings;
- Quashed the pending trial in State v. Anupam Sahu; and
- Directed that the judgment be forwarded to the Trial Court for compliance.
Case Details
Case: Anupam Shahu v. State, 2026:DHC:5771
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Case Number 3629 of 2023
Application: Criminal Miscellaneous Application Number 12652 of 2026
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Reserved On: 13 July 2026
Date of Judgment: 21 July 2026
Result: Petition allowed; First Information Report Number 105 of 2020 registered at Police Station Kishangarh under Sections 188, 269, 270 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the chargesheet, trial and all consequential proceedings, was quashed.
