JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 644 of 2020, under Sections 332, 353, 504 IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. Fir in the instant case was lodged by respondent no. 3, Ashit Kumar, the informant on 24th September, 2020. According to it, on 23rd September, 2020, in the evening, the informant along with other officials was on patrolling duty, when he reached at Bhhikkampur Chowk, four persons on a motorcycle reached there. When the informant signalled them to stop, they abused him and ran away. Again those four persons returned at the Chowk at 8:15 P.M. on the same day and applicant no.1 attacked the informant with a rod on his head and also abused him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no medical. It is argued that, in fact, the informant was intoxicated at the relevant point of time, he on his own fell down and sustained injuries. The offences are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests that they may not be arrested without following the law. 5. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Initial arguments, as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are self contradictory. On the one hand, learned counsel for the petitioner questions that there is no medical and on the other hand, he himself gives the explanation as to how the informant sustained injury. According to him, in an intoxicated state, the informant himself fell down and sustained the injury. Now, the question is- how the petitioners saw the informant fell down? These all are factual aspects of the matter. They cannot be scrutinised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. FIR in this case discloses commission of cognizable offence. In fact, it is a very serious offence, hitting of a police personal on duty. But, then its truthfulness has to be ascertained during the investigation or at the trial, as the case may be. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. Apprehension is raised that the petitioners may not be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner. Arrest cannot be mechanical. IO has to first and foremost ascertain the complicity of a person and thereafter weigh in his mind the need for arrest. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. Apprehension is raised that the petitioners may not be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner. Arrest cannot be mechanical. IO has to first and foremost ascertain the complicity of a person and thereafter weigh in his mind the need for arrest. This Court has no doubt that IO in the instant case shall follow all the statutory provisions and guidelines in the instant case, if such an occasion arises. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.