- (1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated two petitions for quashing the FIRs (Annexures P1), by virtue of this common judgment in order to avoid the repetition.
(2.) The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that, on 8.7.2009 complainant Edvin Seth, Motor Vehicles Inspector respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") was present in his office. At about 12.30 PM, petitioner-accused Ajay Pal Goyal came to his office and asked him to pass the vehicle on incomplete papers. When the complainant refused to oblige him, then, he started abusing and threatened the complainant to involve him in some vigilance inquiry. The accused was stated to have assaulted the complainant in order to deter from discharging his official duties.
(3.) In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by way of FIR, bearing No.188 dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 186, 353, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the police of Police Station City Sangrur, in the manner depicted here-in-above, which is subject matter of CRM No.M-16148 of 2011 titled as Ajay Pal Goyal Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (in short "Ist case").;