Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29777 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21925 of 2024 Applicant :- Sachin Choudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tandon,Mahendra Singh,Manu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material placed on record. 2. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 14.01.2022, cognizance/summoning order 16.04.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3223 of 2024, titled State v. Sachin Choudhary, arising out of Case Crime No.0198 of 2020, under Sections 188, 269, 270, 271,124A, 505, 153-A, 153-B IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, P.S. Amroha Nagar, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha). 3. In brief, the prosecution's case is that the applicant had contested in the Lok Sabha Parliamentary Election for the Amroha seat on the ticket of Samajwadi Party. However, he conducted a press conference in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C., which was in effect at that time. During this event, he made statements regarding the serious illness caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to incite public sentiment against the legally established government. His remarks posed a significant risk to public safety, given the ongoing threat of COVID-19, and they were disseminated via social media platforms. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) are fundamentally inaccurate and misplaced. It is asserted that the entire investigation has been conducted with political motivations and inherent biases from its inception, directly targeting the applicant. The applicant is a dedicated social worker and he has actively participated in numerous social initiatives aimed at enhancing community well- being. His contributions have been acknowledged by various organizations, which have recognized him for his commitment to social betterment. The applicant has never engaged in any unlawful conduct whatsoever. Furthermore, it is submitted that the applicant has been involved in politics since 2019, and the present criminal case appears to be an orchestrated effort to tarnish his reputation and that of his family members. The timing and nature of these allegations suggest a concerted effort to undermine the applicant's standing in the community and his contributions to society. Learned counsel has relied upon statement of constable Nasir Ahmad and Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar, Head Constable Surendra Pal and in their statements they have stated that the applicant had not called a press conference and it was media persons themselves who had gone to applicant to take his statement. The statements of Ashraf Ali (ABP News), Vineet Agarwal (Zee News), and Imran (Live Today) were also recorded. In their statements, they mentioned that they were present at the scene of the incident along with other media personnel. They stated that the applicant arrived in his car, gave his statement, and then left with them. 5. Learned counsel submits that: (i) no offense under Section 188 IPC is established against the applicant, as the applicant was acting in accordance with the general directives issued by the Government. As a social worker, the applicant was engaged in activities aimed at providing aid to migrant workers. Furthermore, the applicant was simply passing by the incident site when media personnel approached him for a statement regarding the situation, (ii) the ingredients of offence under Section 269 IPC are not attracted, as the applicant was not infected by any infectious disease that could have been transmitted. Moreover, the applicant did not engage in any unlawful or negligent acts that he knew or had reason to believe could potentially spread a disease hazardous to life; at most, the applicant expressed personal views regarding the circumstances, (iii) no offence under Section 270 IPC is attracted in the given facts, as the applicant had no infectious disease that could have been spread. Additionally, the applicant did not maliciously commit any acts that he knew or had reason to believe would endanger health or life via the transmission of infectious diseases. The applicant merely articulated personal opinions concerning the situation, (iv) no offence under Section 271 IPC stands against the applicant, as he did not contravene any governmental rules enacted to regulate interactions related to infectious diseases. The applicant also did not visit any locations designated by the Government where an infectious disease was prevalent, (v) no offence under Section 153 IPC exists, given that the applicant's statement was neither made with malice nor intended to incite others to riot. Furthermore, the applicant did not disseminate this information to any individuals, nor can he be held responsible for its transmission through social media, (vi) no offence under Section 153-A of the IPC is substantiated against the applicant, as it is clear from the applicant's statements that he did not instigate enmity of any kind between various groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, or any similar factors, (vii) no offence under Section 153-B of the IPC has been made out, as the applicant's statements did not contain any imputations or assertions detrimental to national integration, (viii) no offence under Section 505 IPC is established, since the alleged statements made by the applicant did not intend to incite or were likely to provoke anyone to commit an offense against the State; the statements reflected the applicant's views on the perceived mismanagement of the lockdown situation prevalent at that time, (ix) no offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is established, as the applicant's statements do not qualify as lascivious or appealing to prurient interests, (x) lastly, no offense under Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 can be attributed to the applicant, as he did not disseminate any false alarms or warnings about disasters that could have instigated panic. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Vinod Dua v. Union of India and others, [2021 SCC Online SC 414] wherein the Supreme Court has held that by merely stating against the policy of lockdown and against the Prime Minister do not constitute any offence under Section 188 IPC and Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005. He further relied upon the case of Sidak Singh Sandhu v. U.T. Chandigarh & Anr., passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM- M-19407-2022 (O&M), order dated 27.07.2022, State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde [2014(3) SCC 659], S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India [(2022) 7 SCC 433]. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that allegations are serious against the applicant. From perusal of contents of FIR, its revealed that the applicant has conducted a press conference in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C., which was in effect at that time. During this event, he made statements regarding the serious illness caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to incite public sentiment against the Government. His remarks posed a significant risk to public safety, given the ongoing threat of COVID-19, and they were disseminated via social media platforms. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and having perused the material available on record, it is prima facie observes that the applicant has held a press conference in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and made statements about the severe impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. 9. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the applicant to raise the contentions made before this Court at the stage of framing of the charge or filing of application for discharge, as may be advised. The learned trial Court shall deal with the contentions raised by the applicant herein on merits and accordingly decide the case in accordance with law. So far as judgments relied upon by the applicant's counsel are concerned, the same shall also be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court 10. As the charge-sheet has been filed without arrest, therefore, the applicant shall not be taken into judicial custody during trial on presentation of bail bond, subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 A. Tripathi Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad