The court emphasized the limited scope of examining factual aspects and interfering with the prosecution at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., highlighting the need to use the power under this section sparingly and with great circumspection.

JUDGMENT :

SUVIR SEHGAL J.

1. The hearing of the instant petition has been taken up through video conferencing due to spread of contagion.

2. Through the instant petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 94 dated 01.05.2020 lodged for offence under Sections 353, 186, 332, 506, 188, 270, IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, Annexure P-1, Police Report dated 26.05.2020, Annexure P-3 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Facts, in brief, are that the impugned FIR has been registered on the complaint of Lady Constable Lovepreet Kaur on the allegation that at about 7 p.m. on 01.05.2020, when she, alongwith Constable Lovedeep Singh and Constable Sandeep Singh, were patrolling the area of Tej Ram Street, they found that the accused-petitioners were sitting in a cosmetics and grocery shop, which was open in violation of the curfew restrictions imposed due to the outbreak of corona virus. On being asked to close the shop, one of the petitioners started cursing the complainant, both the accused obstructed them in the performance of their duty, caught hold of Constable Lovedeep Singh and dragged him, tearing his uniform in the scuffle. FIR was registered at 10.37 P.M. on 01.05.2020 and the petitioners were arrested on 02.05.2020. They were granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate on 06.05.2020 vide order Annexure P-2. After the completion of the investigation, challan, Annexure P-3, was presented against the accused-petitioners and the charge is yet to be framed.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners have been falsely framed and neither the alleged occurrence took place, nor was the complainant-respondent no. 2 was present on the spot. It is his contention that there is no shop in the premises of the petitioners, who are professionals and the alleged shop in question is their law office. He has argued that the FIR has been registered at the behest of Jaswinder Singh, who has been made an eye-witness, against whom FIR No. 149 dated 05.07.2018 for offence under section 295-A, IPC, Annexure P-4, which is pending trial, has been registered by petitioner no. 1. Reference has also been made to the video recording, Annexure P-5.

5. The petition has been opposed and separate, but similar replies, by way of affidavit have been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Maur, Bhatinda, on behalf of the State-respondent no. 1; complainant-Lady Constable Lovepreet Kaur, respondent no. 2 and Constable Lovedeep Singh, respondent no. 3.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the paper-book with the assistance of the counsel.

7. On the basis of the material collected and statement of the witnesses, the prosecution agency has filed the Police Report, Annexure P-3, under Sections 353, 186, 332, 506, 188, 270, IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the matter is pending for consideration on the framing of the charge. From reading of the complaint and the material produced, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not fulfilled and the offences are not made out or that the proceedings are mala-fide, frivolous or vexatious. It is relevant to notice that impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by a police official, who alongwith other officials, was discharging her duty and ensuring enforcement of orders passed by the Government during the Covid-19 pandemic. Instead of cooperating with the complainant and abiding by the guidelines to fight the pandemic, the petitioners allegedly assaulted an official. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any abuse of process of law in registering the FIR. This being the position, there is hardly any scope for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

8. The petitioners hav