The brief facts of the case as narrated by & Ors. v. State of Haryana.1 the Supreme Court

-30.01.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court to quash the order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the learned SDJM, Jharsuguda in C.T. Case No.2200 of 2020 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 188, 269, 270 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, on the ground that the proceedings are without jurisdiction, contrary to statutory mandate, and amount to an abuse of the process of law. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

The brief facts of the case as narrated by the Petitioners are as follows: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 11:27:32 i. The present proceeding arises out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 607 of 2020 dated 20.08.2020, registered on the basis of an allegation that the petitioners violated containment zone restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. ii. One resident of Malipada area tested positive for COVID-19, pursuant to which the District Magistrate & Collector, Jharsuguda declared Malipada and surrounding areas as a containment zone vide order dated 12.08.2020. iii. The residential house of the petitioners fell within the declared containment zone, and the nasal swab sample of Petitioner No.1 was collected on 15.08.2020 for RT-PCR testing. The test result of Petitioner No.1 was declared COVID-19 positive on 20.08.2020 evening. iv. The informant, who is the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, alleged that despite containment restrictions and sample collection, the petitioners continued to move outside containment zone and attended court and other public places between 12.08.2020 and 20.08.2020. v. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who submitted Final Form against the petitioners. vi. By order dated 16.11.2020, the learned SDJM, Jharsuguda took cognizance of offences under Sections 188, 269, 270 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 11:27:32 II.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The petitioners contend that the cognizance order has been passed mechanically, without independent application of judicial mind, solely relying upon the Final Form submitted by the Investigating Officer. ii. It is asserted that cognizance under Section 188 IPC is barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C., as no written complaint was filed by the competent public servant before the Magistrate. iii. The petitioners argue that no offence under Sections 269 and 270 IPC is made out since the essential ingredient of “knowledge” or “reason to believe” regarding infection was absent prior to

20.08.2020. iv. It is contended that the FIR itself was lodged immediately after receipt of the test result and there is no allegation of exposure to public places after confirmation of COVID-19 positivity. v. The petitioners submit that investigation under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is statutorily barred as it was conducted by an officer below the rank of Inspector, contrary to Section 3A(ii) of the Act. vi. Reliance is placed on a subsequent RT-PCR test report dated

21.08.2020 showing Petitioner No.1 as COVID-19 negative, casting doubt on the prosecution’s allegation of infection and spread. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 11:27:32 vii. The petitioners rely on judicial precedents to contend that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law in absence of legally sustainable material. III. FINDINGS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE SDJM COURT:

The order dated 16.11.2020 reflects that the learned SDJM perused the Final Form and the record produced by the Investigating Officer before taking cognizance of the offences alleged. The learned SDJM recorded satisfaction regarding existence of a prima facie case under Sections 188, 269, 270 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The order does not indicate any independent discussion on the statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. in relation to Section 188 IPC. The order does not record any specific finding on the requirement of “knowledge” or “reason to believe” under Sections 269 and 270 IPC. There is no discussion in the order regarding the statutory mandate under Section 3A of the Epidemic Diseases Act concerning the rank of the Investigating Officer. The cognizance order is brief in nature and does not elaborate on how the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie satisfied. The order proceeds on the basis of satisfaction of a prima facie case without addressing procedural objections raised subsequently by the petitioners. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 11:27:32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the SDJM, Jharsuguda in C.T. Case No. 2200/2020 (arising out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 607 of 2020), involving alleged violation of COVID-19 containment orders. The petitioners challenge the cognizance taken under Sections 188, 269, 270, and 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, on grounds that: (i) cognizance under Section 188 IPC is barred under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. due to absence of a written complaint from the competent authority; (ii) essential mens rea under Sections 269 and 270 IPC is lacking as there was no knowledge of infection before 20.08.2020; and (iii) the investigation under the Epidemic Diseases Act was conducted by an unauthorized officer below the rank of Inspector, violating the statutory mandate. The petitioners argue that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Clause (a)(i) of Section 195(1) CrPC prohibits any court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC (contempt of lawful authority of public servants) except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the allegations of disobedience (Section 188 IPC) relate to violation of an order promulgated by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jharsuguda on 12.08.2020 declaring the Malipada area as a containment zone. The informant (complainant) in the FIR is the local Tahasildar- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2026 11:27:32 cum-Executive Magistrate, who indeed is the public official responsible for enforcing the containment order.

However, no complaint in writing by the said public servant (or any

superior) was filed before the Magistrate. Instead, the police proceeded to investigate and submitted a charge-sheet (Final Form), on the basis of which the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance. This mode of taking cognizance squarely contravenes the mandate of Section 195 CrPC. The law in this regard is well-settled that the embargo of Section 195 is absolute; if an offence falls under its ambit (as Section 188 IPC does), the court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance in the absence of a proper written complaint by the competent public servant. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that provisions of Section 195 are mandatory and not merely directory; a Magistrate cannot bypass this requirement by entertaining a police report for an offence like Section 188 IPC. In M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana.1 the Supreme Court, after surveying earlier precedents, observed as follows: “Provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section.”

Furthermore, in the case of Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab2, it was held that any trial and conviction for an offence covered by Section 195, if taken cognizance of without such complaint, would be void ab initio, having been conducted without jurisdiction. The Court held as follows: