Point of Law : Right of inquiry by police is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie discloses the commission of such an offence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. M.P. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1.

2. As both these petitions traced its origin to a common FIR, and as a common question of law is involved in these petitions and as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, it is proposed to take up the same together and disposed of the same by this common judgment & order.

3. In both these petitions, the F.I.R of the Dispur Police Station Case No.1843/2021, registered under Sections 120(B)/188/336/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by Smti Priyama Goswami, is sought to be quashed by the petitioners, namely, Shri Nimit Kartikeya Patel, Smti Monjuma Gogoi Tamuli, Shri Uttam Borah, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“On 19.05.2021, Smti Priyama Goswami (respondent No.2) lodged one F.I.R. with the Dispur Police Station, alleging inter alia, amongst others, she and husband met Shri Nimit Kartikeya Patel, Smti Monjuma Gogoi Tamuli, Shri Uttam Borah, at a business meeting held on 4th May 2021 at 11.40 a.m. at Kalita Spectrum at G. S. Road, Guwahati. In the said business talk, they also discussed about vaccination of Covid-19 and then Smti. Priyam Goswami has lamented about not getting a slot for getting vaccination even after registration in Arogya Setu App. Then Smti Manjuma Gogoi Tamuli informed Smti. Goswami that Nimit kartikeya Patel, and Uttam Borah are the employee of Downtown Hospital and they can help her in getting them vaccinated there. Smti. Goswami then requested them to arrange three vaccines for her, her husband and her niece. Then on 06.05.2021, at about 10.00 a.m., Shri Uttam Borah called Smti. Goswami over her mobile phone and asked her and her husband and her niece to come to Downtown Hospital, Old Building by 11.00 a.m. as 3 (three) vaccines were being arranged for them pursuant to her request made in the meeting held at Kalita Spectrum on 04.05.2021. Then, while the respondent No. 2, along with her husband and niece reached Downtown Hospital and called Shri Nimik Kartikeya Patel, who was supposed to arrange everything for them, And Shri Patel send one boy who took them to the vaccination room and there they were mislead and without their knowledge and without maintaining the protocol required to be followed in clinical trial, administered ZyCoV-D (Study no. NCOV.20.002; Sponsor: Cadila Healthcare Ltd, Ahmedabad) instead of Covaxin or Covishield and they were asked to visit after 28 days for second dose and, thereafter, another 28 days for the final booster. On receipt of the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Dispur Police Station registered a case, being Dispur P.S. Case no. 1843/2021, under Sections 120(B)/188/336/420/506 of the India Penal Code and started investigation. Thereafter, on 20.05.2021, the petitioners were asked by the Officer-In-Charge, Dispur Police Station to appear before him and then they came to know about lodging F.I.R. by the respondent no. 2 on 19.05.2021.

5. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petitions for quashing the F.I.R. on the ground:-

(i) that, the F.I.R. was lodged with malicious intention and same is afterthought and without prima facie material, the same has been registered;

(ii) that, there is no record of having ever visited Downtown Hospital on 06.05.2021 by the respondent No. 2 and her husband and niece and no test for Covid infection was carried out before vaccination on 06.05.2021 upon the respondent No. 2 and her husband and niece and there is no record of obtaining informed consent from the individual and as such, the F.I.R. is lodged with mala fide intention and vindictive motive;

(iii) that, the present case is squarely