Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR and Final Report for Violation of COVID-19 Regulations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) and final report filed against Singer Gurnam Bhullar and others for alleged violations of COVID-19 regulations. The court held that the registration of the FIR and subsequent proceedings were not permissible under the law.

Justice Gurbir Singh, presiding over the case, emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and stated, “No court shall take cognizance of the offense punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless a written complaint is made by the concerned public servant.” The court highlighted that the prosecution failed to comply with this requirement, rendering the trial and conviction void ab initio.

The case involved allegations that Singer Gurnam Bhullar and his companions had gathered at Prime Mall without permission during the COVID-19 pandemic and were shooting a film without observing necessary precautions. The FIR was registered based on reliable information provided by a police officer.

The court further emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an extraordinary situation, necessitating strict compliance with government instructions and guidelines. The activities during the pandemic required permission from the concerned District Magistrate and adherence to the prescribed guidelines.

Justice Gurbir Singh stated, “The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ensuing regulations imposed an extraordinary situation. No activity could take place without permission, subject to observing directions for preventing Covid-19 pandemic as issued by the Government.” The court referred to several precedent cases, including C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Jiwan Kumar vs. State of Punjab, which supported the mandatory requirement of a written complaint by the concerned public servant for registering an FIR.

High court quashed the FIR and final report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., declaring them impermissible under the law. This ruling brings clarity on the necessity of following proper legal procedures in registering offenses related to COVID-19 violations.

Date of Decision: 05.07.2023

Gurnam Singh Bhullar vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News