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 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 covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 and that the allegation made in the F.I.R., even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose even the prima facie case against the petitioners; (iv) that, though the case has been registered under Sections 120B/188/336/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, yet, none of the ingredients of the aforesaid offences is made out/specified from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. and that there was no agreement between the petitioners to do a illegal act, which is a condition precedent registering a case under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code; (v) that, no order promulgated by a public servant is violated and that no act which endangers human life or the personal safety of others has been committed by the petitioners which is condition precedent for attracting Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and that to attract Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, no dishonest inducement was there to deceive the person to deliver any deliver any property so as to attract Section 420 of the Indian Penal code; (vi) that, there is no ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation as threatening to the complainant by the petitioners to cause any injury to his person or his reputation is totally absent in the F.I.R. (vii) that, screening and enrolment of adult subject for the particular study of ZyCoV-D vaccine was closed in the month of March, 2021 and as such, administering of the vaccination to the respondent No. 2 and her husband and her niece on 19.05.2021 does not arise; and (viii) that there was delay of 13 days in filing the F.I.R. and that even assuming that they have been administered vaccine, yet, they took the vaccine without any protest and that due to non-providing of international vaccine certificate, which the respondent No. 2 insisted upon, the F.I.R. has been lodged with manifestly mala fide intention and ulterior motive and that no reasonable and just or prudent person would come to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and, therefore, it is contended to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the F.I.R. 6. Mr. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the allegation made in the F.I.R, even if taken at their face value, failed to disclose commission of a cognizable offence and that the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by ground No. 2 mentioned in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and that the occurrence allegedly took place on 06.05.2021, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.05.2021, after delay of 13 days and that absolutely no offence is made out against the petitioners and the registration of the F.I.R and investigation thereof is a clear abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, Mr. Choudhury has contended to allow the petitions by quashing the F.I.R. against the petitioners. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that if the allegation made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners and that they have administered the vaccine to the respondent No. 2 and her husband and her niece without taking informed consent and protocol and procedure has not been followed and that the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) is not applicable here in this case and that factual aspect, which are hazy and disputed herein this case by the petitioners in ground No. VII of the ground, cannot be looked into by this Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the investigation is in initial stage and the police may be allowed to continue with the investigation and after completion of the investigation, if the police finds that no case is made out against the petitioners, then they may submit Final Report. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. Mr. Deka also referred one case law Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 , in support of his submission. 8. On the other hand, Mr. M.P. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, also adopted the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and further submits that it discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners and that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. M.P. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, also adopted the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and further submits that it discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners and that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315) the FIR of this case cannot be quashed. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 9. From a careful perusal of the F.I.R., following facts and circumstances can be culled out: (i) Smti. Priyam Goswami (Respondent No.2) and her husband met the petitioners-Shri Nimit Kartikeya Patel (petitioner in petition No.369/2021), Smti Monjuma Gogoi Tamuli, Shri Uttam Borah (petitioner No.1 and 2 in petition No.384/2021) at a business meeting held on 4th May 2021 at 11.40 a.m. at Kalita Spectrum at G. S. Road, Guwahati. (ii) During business talk, they also discussed about vaccination of Covid-19 and the respondent No. 2 has lamented about not getting a slot for getting vaccination even after registration in Arogya Setu App. (iii) Smti. Manjuma Gogoi Tamuli then informed the Smti. Goswami that Nimit kartikeya Patel, and Uttam Borah are the employee of Downtown Hospital and they can help her in getting vaccinated at there. (iv) Smti. Goswami then requested them to arrange three vaccines for her, her husband and her niece. (v) On 4th May 2021, Uttam Borah, called Smti. Goswami and her husband and her nice to Downtown Hospital by 11.00 a.m. stating that vaccines are being arranged and also asked her to call Nimit Kartekeya Patel, who will arrange everything. (vi) Then Smti. Goswami, along with her husband and niece reached there and call Nimit Kartekeya Patel who then sent one boy, who took them to 5th Floor and asked them to wait for a while and thereafter one Abir Goswami came and called them one by one to the vaccination room. (vii) Smti. Goswami and her husband and niece were then vaccinated without collecting their I/D proof and when enquired about the vaccine administered to them, they have been told that he is not authorised to share the name and he just following the instruction of Nimit Kartekeya Patel. (vii) Smti. Goswami and her husband and niece were then vaccinated without collecting their I/D proof and when enquired about the vaccine administered to them, they have been told that he is not authorised to share the name and he just following the instruction of Nimit Kartekeya Patel. (viii) After vaccination they met Nimit Kartekeya Patel in front of the vaccination room and when enquired, he told that the Covaxin was administered to them and he also told them that no I/D proof is necessary and the same will be required when the 3rd dose will be administered, then they got surprised to hear about the third dose as government approved vaccine Covaxin and Covishield has two dose only. (ix) They also came to know after further enquiry that Nimit Kartekeya Patel is the Head of Clinical Trial, Department of Downtown Hospital and he had vaccinated other persons also in similar manner and the said programme is carried on under the supervision of Nimit Kartekeya Patel. (x) They also came to know that they were administered ZyCoV-D (Study no. NCOV.20.002; Sponsor: Cadila Healthcare Ltd, Ahmedabad) instead of Covaxin or Covishield and they were asked to receive the second dose after 28 days and the final booster after another 28 days, without maintaining protocol required to be followed in such clinical trial. (xi) Their I/Ds were not verified, no registration was done and no certificate was provided to them inspite of repeated follow up. 10. The allegation so made in the F.I.R. are either disputed or denied by the petitioners in their respective petitions. A cursory perusal of the ground No. 6 of the petition, which the learned counsel for the respondent referred to during hearing, reveals that vaccine has been administered to the respondent No.2 and her husband and niece, although the petitioner in the Petition No. 384/2021 denied his role and contended that without informed consent of the subject, the same cannot be administered in view of Clinical Trial Rules and Regulation. It is also stated that screening and enrolment of adult subject for study of ZyCov-D was closed on March 2021 and as such, the petitioner contended the allegation in the F.I.R. is unbelievable. 11. Thus, it appears that facts are hazy and disputed here in this case. It is also stated that screening and enrolment of adult subject for study of ZyCov-D was closed on March 2021 and as such, the petitioner contended the allegation in the F.I.R. is unbelievable. 11. Thus, it appears that facts are hazy and disputed here in this case. And whether there is element of truth or not in the assertions made in the First Information Report (FIR), the same cannot be decided by this Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is to be mentioned here that in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded as under:- (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; (xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; (xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; (xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; (xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; (xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; (xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. (xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” 12. Here in this case, the respondent No.2 and her husband and nice were administered ZyCov-D vaccine, which was at the stage of clinical trial, without informed consent and without screening and without collecting their I/D proof. And the same was done by stating to them that they are administered with Covaxine vaccine. These facts and circumstances, when taken at their face value, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence under sections 336/420 Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. At this stage it also cannot be said that the same are unbelievable. This court is not entitled to embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) in view of the guideline in point No.VI in the case of Niharika Infrastructure (supra). 13. In view of above discussion and finding, the submission of Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, left this court unimpressed. In the given facts and circumstances on the record, it cannot be said that the ratio laid down in the case Bhajal Lal (supra) would come into his aid because of our discussion and finding recorded herein above. 14. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, left this court unimpressed. In the given facts and circumstances on the record, it cannot be said that the ratio laid down in the case Bhajal Lal (supra) would come into his aid because of our discussion and finding recorded herein above. 14. On the other hand, I find sufficient force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that factual aspect cannot be looked into by this Court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. I have carefully gone through the case law (2018) 3 SCC 104 , Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., and I find that the ratio laid down therein fortified his submission. Following its earlier decision in State of W.B. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 , it has been held therein that High court cannot decide the issues arising out of the case like an investigation agency or/an appellate authority by little realizing that it was exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the case of Swapan Kumar Guha (supra) it has been held that “the 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. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences”. 15. In the result I find no merit in these petitions and accordingly the same stands dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated. The parties have to bear their own costs.