Bombay HC quashes criminal proceedings against doctor for delay in reporting to quarantine centre after COVID infection

Nagpur: Granting relief to a doctor, who was booked for failing to get himself admitted in a COVID centre after being infected by the virus, the Bombay High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Quashing the FIR, Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke mentioned in the order, "The FIR in connection with Crime No.245/2020 registered under Sections 188, 269, 270 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant."

The doctor was booked based on a complaint filed by a medical practitioner, who was on an 108 Ambulance (emergency service). Back then, the Medical Superintendent of the Buldhana district had sought the doctor's help from the local police to bring the concerned doctor to the COVID centre at Mehekar, Buldhana, so that he could be admitted.

Since the doctor did not report to the COVID centre, despite the initial order by the Medical Superintendent, the complainant, along with the police, went to the accused doctor's residence. However, they did not get any response from the doctor or his family. Even though the police made an announcement with the help of a megaphone, the doctor did not come out.

After some time, the complainant doctor came to know that the accused had reached the Covid centre on his own. Following this, an FIR was lodged under sections 188 (disobeying orders of a public servant), 269 (negligent acts likely to spread dangerous infections) and 270 (malignant acts likely to spread infection of a life-threatening disease) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Seeking quashing of the FIR, the accused doctor approached the High Court. The doctor's counsel submitted that the recital of the FIR showed that after some time, the doctor had approached the COVID-19 centre.

Further, the counsel submitted that there is no allegation that due to his living in the COVID-19 centre, anybody was affected as he was found Covid positive patient. Thus, he submitted that no offence either is made out under Sections 188, 269 or 270 of the IPC and therefore, as no prima facie case is made out against the doctor.

On the other hand, the APP opposed the argument and submitted that considering the applicant was specifically intimated to remain present at Covid-19 Centre but he has not appeared there and there was a possibility of infection to the others due to his free movement and thus, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, as there is disobedience of the order duly promulgated by the pubic servant. Therefore, there is an offence committed by the present applicant under Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC also.

After hearing the arguments and perusing the investigation papers, the bench noted that the accused doctor was in the Home Quarantine facilty and was asked to appear at the Centre. 

"Admittedly, notice issued to the present applicant shows that he was asked to appear in the said Quarantine Centre, but he subsequently appeared at 1.15 p.m. Thus, it is not the case that he did not turn up to the Quarantine Centre. In fact, the statement of various witnesses which are recorded. All the statements show that subsequently, he reported to the said Quarantine Centre. Thus, as far as the offence under Section 188 of the IPC which deals with the disobedience of the order duly promulgated by the public servant is not attracted against the present applicant," noted the HC bench.

Observing that there was no allegation that the doctor negligently did something which he knew was likely to spread the infection, the bench noted, "Similarly, offence punishable under Section 269 of the IPC deals with negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. This is also not attracted as there is no allegation that he unlawfully or negligently does any act which he knows or has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life and which shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months."

Holding that no case is made out against the doctor, the bench noted, "Similarly, ingredients of Section 270 of the IPC are also not attracted and therefore, in view of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant."

Accordingly, the bench allowed the complaint and quashed the FIR.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/18/vs-state-of-maharashtra-342451.pdf

Also Read: Bombay HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against doctor in patient data leak case