Calcutta High Court refuses to quash FIR for distributing leaflets against COVID vaccine drive

The Calcutta High Court on Friday refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man who distributed pamphlets urging people not to get vaccinated against the COVID-19 vaccine [Anindya Das vs State of West Bengal]..Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) found that the various criminal charges filed against the accused man appeared to be justified in light of allegations that he tried to disrupt a COVID-19 vaccination drive at a school. The Court, therefore, dismissed the man's plea to quash the criminal case against him."Encouraging such acts against the interest of the State and the Country would clearly amount to abuse of the process of Court and the present revision is thus liable to be dismissed and the proceedings in the present case is to be permitted to proceed towards expeditious trial, in the interest of justice," the Court said. .The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one, Anindya Das, to quash a criminal case registered against him in 2022.The Court was told that on November 1, 2022, when a vaccination program was going on in a girls' school in Titagarh, Das and two others distributed leaflets and created panic by telling parents not to vaccinate their children and by claiming that two girls had died after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.Das and his companions claimed to be members of the Bharat Jagaran Andolan or Awaken India Movement (AIM). The Court was told that they were trying to disrupt the vaccine drive and create chaos by spreading rumours, and without wearing a face mask.Despite warnings, the accused did not stop these activities, the Court was told. Therefore, the police seized their pamphlets and arrested all three persons in the presence of witnesses. A criminal case was also registered against the three accused men..On April 19, the High Court dismissed the plea by one of the three accused, Anindya Das and refused to quash the criminal case filed in the matter..Printing and distributing leaflets among parents and telling them not to get their children vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus is prima facie defamatory of the vaccination program undertaken by the government for the welfare of the citizens, the Court explained. "This conduct of the petitioner was also prima facie defamatory of the program under taken by the Government for the welfare of the general public and thus the ingredients required to constitute a prima facie offence under Section 500 (defamation) IPC is also present," the Court's order stated.Likewise, a prima facie was also made out against the accused under Section 501 (printing defamatory material) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court added. The Court further noted that such acts, prima facie, amounted to making statements that would cause public mischief and disobedience of orders of a public servant, which are offences under Sections 505 and 188 of the IPC. "The said conduct of the petitioner was prima facie in disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, by creating panic among the public, by distributing leaflets projecting the death of two young girls. This conduct was sufficient to cause a riot or affray as the public was already scared for life considering the fatal effects of the COVID -19 pandemic," the Court went on to observe..By trying to cause panic among the public and discouraging them from taking the vaccine or wearing masks, the Das' act was prima facie malignant and likely to spread COVID-19 at a time when the infection was undoubtedly dangerous to life, the Court further opined. Therefore, Das' conduct was, prima facie, also an offence under Section 270 (malignant act to spread infection) of the IPC, the Court added. .The Court also noted prima facie case was made out against the accused for the offence under Section 51(b) (obstruction to comply with orders of public servant) of the Disaster Management Act.However, since the pamphlets were not put on sale, the Court said that the offence under Section 502 (selling defamatory material) was prima facie not made out..With these observations, the Court dismissed Das' plea."The trial shall proceed for offences punishable under Sections 188/270/500/501/504/505(1)(a)(b)(c)/120B of IPC and 51(b) of the D.M. Act., but the Court shall not be influenced by the observations of this Court and dispose of the case in accordance with law," the Court added. .Advocates Srinjoy Das, Saroj Banerjee, Arbind Singh and Jui Jana appeared for the accused/ petitioner (Das).Senior Government advocate Santanu Kumar Mitra along with advocate Amartya Pal represented the State..[Read Judgment]