1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CRR/47/2026 K Aysha Vs The State Mr. G.Mini … for the Petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State September 22, 2026 [AKB] Item No.2 1. The present criminal revisional application has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing of G.R. Case No. 750 of 2020, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, South Andaman. The said proceeding arose out of FIR No. 60 of 2020 dated 23rd April, 2020, registered at Bambooflat Police Station, District South Andaman, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. 2. At the outset, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that one of the co-accused, namely Farida Bibi, had earlier approached this Court by filing CRR No. 41 of 2026, seeking quashing of the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 750 of 2020. It is submitted that the said revisional application was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 5th September, 2026. 2 3. It is further submitted that the present petitioner was also impleaded in the said proceeding and stands on the same footing as the said co-accused, Farida Bibi. According to the learned Advocate, there is no distinguishing feature either in the allegations or in the materials relied upon by the prosecution so far as the present petitioner is concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the benefit of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench ought to be extended to the present petitioner as well. 4. The learned Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the order dated 5th September, 2026 passed in CRR No. 41 of 2026, wherein the Coordinate Bench, upon consideration of the allegations and the statutory provisions, observed, inter-alia, as follows: “25.Thus, upon plain reading of section 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code it will be apparent that when a person is suffering from some disease and intentionally does certain acts which will cause the said disease to spread or is residing in a house where there are patients suffering from disease and knowing fully well that persons entering such house will be infected with disease intentionally invites certain persons to the said house will be guilty of offences under section 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the house where the birthday party was held had a COVID patient or there was a direction by the Authority that the members of the said 3 house shall be in quarantine. Thus the ingredients of section 269 and 270 are not attracted. 26. In the case of XVS Hospital VSZ reported in AIR 1999 S.C 495, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was pleased to observe as follows:- Section 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code provides as under:-" “Section 269 of the IPC- Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life. Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is and which he knows or has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Section 270 of the IPC- Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life- "Whoever malignantly does any act which is and which he knows or has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both." 40.These two sections spell out two separate and distinct offences by providing that if a person negligently or unlawfully does an act which he knew was likely to spread the infection of a disease, dangerous to life to another person then the former would be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for the term indicated therein. 4 Therefore, if a person suffering from indicated the dreadful disease "AIDS" knowingly marries a woman and thereby transmits infection to that woman, he would be guilty of offences indicated in sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code. 41. The above statutory provisions thus impose a duty upon the appellant not to marry as the marriage would have the effect of spreading the infection of his own disease which obviously is dangerousto life, to the woman whom he marries apart from being an offence.” 5. The Coordinate Bench considered the scope and ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code and also took note of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X v. Hospital Z, reported in AIR 1999 SC 495, concerning the statutory requirements attached to the said offences. 6. Upon consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR and the materials placed before it, the Coordinate Bench came to the conclusion that the necessary ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270 and 271 of the IPC were not disclosed against the petitioner in the said proceeding. The Court further observed that, even if the allegations were taken at their face value, the allegations, at the highest, could give rise to consideration of an offence under Section 188 of the IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. 5 7. The Coordinate Bench thereafter considered the statutory bar concerning cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the IPC. It was observed that, in view of the specific requirement contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court cannot take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC except upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Consequently, a prosecution initiated merely on the basis of the police report/FIR, without compliance with the statutory requirement, could not be sustained for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC. 8. The Coordinate Bench also considered the allegation under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and took note of the statutory requirement contained in Section 60 of the said Act. It was observed that cognizance of an offence under the Disaster Management Act is subject to the statutory conditions prescribed therein and, in the absence of compliance with such mandatory requirement, continuation of the criminal proceeding could not be sustained. 9. Upon consideration of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to therein, the Coordinate Bench ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner therein for the alleged offences under 6 Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 and 34 of the IPC, read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. 10. It is submitted before this Court that the said order dated 5th September, 2026 continues to hold the field. This Court is also informed that the said order has not been challenged before any higher forum and, consequently, there has been no subsequent order altering or setting aside the findings recorded therein. It is further submitted that the Coordinate Bench had observed that similarly situated persons, who were also impleaded in the said proceeding, would be entitled to seek the same benefit upon approaching the Court with an appropriate prayer. 11. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the present petitioner is similarly situated with the petitioner in CRR No. 41 of 2026 and whether there exists any distinguishing factual circumstance which would require this Court to take a different view in respect of the present petitioner. 13. Upon consideration of the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the present petitioner stands on the same footing as the petitioner in CRR No. 41 of 2026. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court which would distinguish the case of the present petitioner from that of the co-accused whose criminal proceeding has already 7 been quashed by the Coordinate Bench. The allegations forming the foundation of the prosecution arise out of the same FIR and the same occurrence, and the statutory impediments considered by the Coordinate Bench in respect of the offences under Sections 188, 269, 270 and 271 of the IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act equally operate in respect of the present petitioner, in the absence of any distinguishing circumstance. 14. It is also relevant that the order dated 5th September, 2026 passed in CRR No. 41 of 2026 has not been shown to have been set aside, modified or stayed by any superior Court. Therefore, the legal position considered and determined therein continues to operate. In the absence of any material demonstrating a distinguishing feature in the case of the present petitioner, permitting the criminal proceeding to continue against this petitioner, while the same proceeding has already been quashed in respect of a similarly situated co-accused, would not be justified. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and particularly in view of the order dated 5th September, 2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench in CRR No. 41 of 2026, this Court finds that the present petitioner is similarly situated and is entitled to the benefit of the said order. 16. Accordingly, G.R. Case No. 750 of 2020, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, South Andaman, arising out of FIR No. 60 of 2020 dated 23rd April, 8 2020, registered at Bambooflat Police Station, District South Andaman, under Sections 188/269/270/271/34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, is hereby quashed in respect of the present petitioner. 17. The petitioner accordingly stands discharged from the aforesaid criminal proceeding. 18. The criminal revisional application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. 19. Connected application, if any, also stands disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court immediately. 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)