A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report (F.I.R.) being C.R. No.II-3036 of 2017 registered with Prantij Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under sections 186, 189 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The contents of the F.I.R. as mentioned in the memo of the application are as under:

(2.1) The complainant is a Police Head Constable (Batch No.889) working at Prantij Police Station, District Sabarkantha. On 17.5.2017, Dr. Jinesh Rathod lodged an F.I.R. bearing No.I-81 of 2017 against some persons viz. (i) Sartajmiya Gulammohmad Sumra, (ii) Moinmiya Gulammohmad Sumra; (3) Irfan Ahmad Nasirkhan Sumra; (iv) Sohebmiya Nasirkhan Sumra. On 18.05.2017 at around 10:00 a.m. Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai (Batch No.1163) detained all the abovenamed accused and kept them in the lockup and called the complainant. By around 3:00 p.m. the petitioner came to the police station and started talking to all the detained persons thereafter, the complainant told the petitioner to move away from the lockup area but the petitioner raised his voice. Hearing such voice of the petitioner, 2-3 police constables approached the petitioner and asked him to leave the place but the petitioner told them that he had come there for the public welfare. Further the petitioner told them that he is an advocate by profession then the complainant asked him not to interfere in the police proceedings, after hearing this the petitioner got provoked and told them that “he will see everyone” and will approach the High Court against them. After such arguments, the Police Inspector confined the petitioner into the lockup and, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is lodged against the petitioner alleging that he had obstructed the lawful exercise of public functions.

3. Learned advocates Mr.Syed with Mr.Ansari appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R. do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner. It is submitted that a bare reading of the sections, under which the offences are alleged against the petitioner, clarify that the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. is not established. It is submitted that the clients of the petitioner were arrested at 10 a.m. on 18.05.2017 and the F.I.R. against them was lodged at 3:35 p.m. meaning thereby, that the petitioner had a valid reason to visit the Police Station at the request of his clients’ relatives and represent them to secure their fundamental rights.

(3.1) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had went to the lockup for providing legal aid to his clients, who were locked up in the Police Station in connection with the F.I.R. lodged by Dr. Jinesh Rathod being C.R. No.I-81 of 2017. It was submitted that the dispute was pertaining to the cross-FIR against Dr.Jinesh Rathod being C.R. No.I-82 of 2017, which was lodged by Nasimbanu Mohmad Sartaj Gulammohmad Sumra. In connection with the aforesaid FIRs the petitioner went to meet his clients on their request.

(3.2) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no law which bars an advocate for providing legal advise to his client and this act of the complainant by arresting the petitioner and putting him in the lockup room itself bars the fundamental rights of the prisoner. It was submitted that there is no statement in the F.I.R. from which it transpires that the petitioner restricted the police officer from exercising their powers.

(3.3) Reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273 and it was submitted that the act of the first informant is in violation of the guidelines laid down in the said judgment. It was submitted that this act of the first informant has disturbed