Delhi High Court on Thursday 16 July 2020 dismissed a petition seeking the filing of an FIR against Swami Ramdev, Acharya Ramkrishna, Patanjali, and others for falsely claiming that they have found a coronavirus cure.
The order was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate Sumeet Anand in an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC by one Tushar Anand, who is the complainant.
In connection with the allegation of finding a cure for COVID- 19, the complainant sought an FIR against Ramdev and others for the commission of offenses under Sections 270/420/504/120B/34 IPC, Section 33E of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for the offense of misbranded drugs, and Section 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954.
According to the complainant, he had registered a complaint with SHO Vasant Vihar, as well as the DCP concerned, but no action had been taken. In compliance with an order given by the judge, the police submitted a status report stating that there was no need to issue an FIR in the case. It has been stated that:
- FIR No 144/2020 had already been registered under Section 420 IPC at the Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan Police Station on the same grounds and grounds.
- AYUSH Ministry had allowed the sale of 'Coronil' as an immunity booster and, in the event of any grievance; the complainant should approach the Ministry.
- The press conference at which 'Coronil' was launched took place in Haridwar, Uttrakhand, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi Police.
In consideration of the fact that the FIR had already been registered in Jaipur, the Court reviewed the law with respect to the registration of several FIRs. The Court observed that the content of the application before it was the same as the content of the FIR lodged at Jaipur and that the application was, in fact, the English translation of the FIR.
It was concluded that ...once there is already an FIR registered with respect to a cause of action, as raised by the complainant herein, which is under investigation, there is no occasion for this court to order registration of another FIR on the same cause of action, which will have the effect of registration of multiple FIRs against the same accused of the same cause of action in different states.
The Court held that the issue of the inclusion of other accused persons and the provisions of the law may be questioned by the Complainant before the court with competent jurisdiction in respect of the Jaipur FIR. The application was thus dismissed. Advocates Lalit Valecha and Manu Prabhakar appeared for Complainant.
[Tushar Anand v. State &Ors.]
