Anoop Chitkara DECISION
Anoop Chitkara, J.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
1. The Petitioner, who is an Advocate and member of the Shimla District Courts Bar Association, has come up before this Court seeking quashing of FIR, registered for wrongful restraint, forming unlawful assembly, rioting, indulging in criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duties, intentional insult to breach the peace, and criminal intimidation. It has been averred that the lawyers were protesting peacefully against restricting the entries to the District Court complex Shimla from a shorter route, forcing them to take a longer way, which had traffic jams, resulting in a delay in attending to the Courts. The Police registered a concocted FIR due to wreaking vengeance with malicious intentions to scuttle the agitation. The Police arraigned her as an accused because she was supporting their cause.
2. The gist of the facts apposite to decide the present petition is as follows:
(a) The Police Station West, Shimla, registered the FIR mentioned above based on Inspector Dinesh Kumar's complaint, the SHO of the said Police Station.
(b) On July 22, 2019, Inspector Dinesh Kumar informed his Police Station that he received telephonic information from ASI Ramesh Chand, who was deputed on Traffic duty, that a large number of Advocates had assembled at Boileuganj Bazar, of Shimla town. These advocates insisted on taking their vehicles through the restricted road, leading to Boileuganj via Chaura Maidan, though they did not have any valid permits to do so.
(c) On this, the complainant SHO reached the spot of agitation. He noticed many advocates assembled at the place, and the Petitioner was one of them. The agitated Advocates had blocked the road by stopping their vehicles in the middle of the road.
(d) The SHO asked them the reasons for creating the traffic jam by halting their vehicles. On this, the lawyers asserted to drive their cars through the restricted road itself. After this, the SHO asked the lawyers to show the permits for driving on the restricted road, upon which the lawyers replied that he could not stop them from driving their vehicles, and at the most, he could challan their cars. After that, these lawyers turned very aggressive and started pushing the police officials, inflicted fist blows, and hurled abuses on them. On this, the complainant tried to calm them down, but they kept on hurling abuses, gave pushes, fist blows, threatened to burn the police station, and told the SHO that they would teach him a lesson never forget in his life. After that, these lawyers sat in protest at the spot and raised slogans.
(e) After this, the SHO, Inspector Dinesh Kumar, directed the Police Station to register FIR against the lawyers and named the petitioner as the person present at the spot.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if all allegations recorded in FIR and investigation are hypothetically accepted to be true and correct, still such allegations fail to make out any prima facie case against the petitioner. Thus, FIR and proceedings be quashed.
4. On the contrary, Learned Additional Advocate General contends that although this Court in Rajiv Jiwan versus State of HP., Cr.MMO No. 51 of 2020, had quashed an FIR of one of the co-accused, still it was quashed after consideration of material collected against such accused, and the petitioner has ........