In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside an FIR registered against a doctor during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered in 2020 against Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar, a medical practitioner from Buldhana district. The complaint was filed by a medical officer associated with emergency ambulance services.
According to the prosecution, during the pandemic, the applicant was instructed to report to a COVID Care Centre. When officials, accompanied by police, visited his residence and clinic, he was not found present. It was alleged that this amounted to disobedience of lawful orders and posed a risk of spreading infection.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Subsidy Relief to Deesa APMC, Orders Full Payment in Cold Storage Scheme Dispute
Based on this complaint, offences were registered under Sections 188 (disobedience of public servant’s order), 269 and 270 (acts likely to spread infection) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR itself showed that the doctor had eventually reached the COVID Care Centre the same day. It was emphasized that there was no evidence of refusal or deliberate disobedience.
It was also submitted that there was no allegation that the applicant’s conduct actually led to the spread of infection or endangered anyone’s life.
On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the applicant failed to immediately comply with official directions, and such conduct could potentially risk public health during a pandemic.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, after examining the record, noted that the applicant had indeed reported to the COVID Care Centre later the same day.
“The material on record clearly indicates that the applicant subsequently appeared at the Quarantine Centre. It is not a case of complete non-compliance,” the Court observed.
The Court further found that the essential ingredients of Section 188 IPC were not satisfied, as there was no clear or intentional disobedience of an order.
On the allegations under Sections 269 and 270 IPC, the Court held that there was no material to show that the applicant acted negligently or in a manner likely to spread infection.
“There is no allegation that the applicant committed any act which he knew or had reason to believe would spread infection dangerous to life,” the Court noted.
The judge also relied on established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, stating that criminal proceedings can be quashed where no prima facie offence is disclosed.
Concluding that no case was made out against the applicant, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR registered under IPC provisions and the Epidemic Diseases Act, to the extent of the applicant.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Bhagwandas Shankardas Zawar vs State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Application (APL) No. 693 of 2020
Judge: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke
Decision Date: 08 April 2026
