The High Court · 2025

IrlR. w,hile LWs.8 and 9 are thc first and second lnvestigating Oflloers in the aforesaid crime.

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioncrs would contend that the complaint dated 19.01 .2021 lodged bv respondent No.2 and the statements ol LWs.l to 4 lack the ingredients of thc aforesaid offbnces. LWs.2 and 3 are interested witnesses as they are police constables of the very same police station and, therefore. their statement cannot be taken into consideration. The Investigating Officer did not examinc any person who faced traffic disturbance said to have caused on account ofrally conducted by the petitioncrs and other accused. The Investigating Ollicer laid the charge sheet in a routine manner. Thus. the proccedings in tht' aforesaid C.C. cannol go on. 4 KLJ Crl.P. No.5t3l0f2025 i) Leamed counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decisions in Charan Singh v. State of U.P.r, Prakash Karat v. State of Kerala2, Mohamed Lathifulla v. -State3, Athaulla Jokatte v. The State of Karnatakaa and Payal Shankar v.The State of Telangana-5.

9. Whereas, leamcd Public Prosecutor would submit that on account of the rally conducted by the petitioners and others, traffic disturbance was caused. Thc statements of LWs.l to 4 attract the albresaid offences and so also thc contents of the complaint. The Investigating Officer having considered all the said aspects during the course of investigation laid the charge sheet against the petitioners and other accuscd. There is no error in it.

10. Respondent No.2 in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.l'].C. rcitcratcd the contcnts of the complaint dated 19.01.2021. LWs.2 and 3 police constables of the very same police station, also stated on the same lines. LW.4 is a businessman. He stated that he is the residcnt of Hafeez Complex, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and he is doing fish business in (2004) 4 SCC 205 2022 SCC Onl.inc Kcr.5243 Crt,.O.RJ.J!,I6416 of202l, decided on 20.09.2021 by Madras High Coutl Crl.P. No.6797 of2022, decided on 17.O4.2025 by Karnataka High Court Crl.P. No.8554 of2024. decidedon 26.11.2024 l Kt,,J Crl.P. No.5l3l ot2025 Ramnagar. On 18.01.2021 at about 11.30 A.M. while he was coming from Ramnagar, Musheerabad to Telugu Thalli Flyover, there werc some Congress MPs. And MLAs. Ex. MLAs and others gathcred in thc Assembly premises. Accuscd Nos.1 to 5, 16 and other F,x. MI-As and MPs. voluntccrs i.ts a legislature giving provocati\.e lectures hcaded a rally. Ihey are giving skrgans against the Ccntral Government approved thrce (03) Agricultural Acts demanding to cancel such Acts and also take back the hike in the prices ol l)etrol and Diesel with a high speed and sit across thc road and for commuting disturbances to the trafflc and giving provocative slogans. Thereafter. thc police took them into custodv. I l. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - I 4l of IPC deals with 'unlawful assembly' and lhe same is extracted as under: " 141. Unlawful asscmbly.- An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlarvful assembly,', if the oommon obiect of the persons composing that asscrnbly is- 1t; To overawe by criminal force. or shorv of criminal force, lthe Central or any State Govcrnment or Parliament or the Legislature of I : i i ! I 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.5l33 of2025 any State, or any public servant in thc cxercise of the lawful power of such public senant; or (2) To resist the execution of any law. or of any legal prucess: or (3) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (4) By mcans of criminal forcc, or shorv ol criminal force, to any person, to takc or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoymcnt of a right ol way, or of the usc of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or 1s; By means of criminal force, or show of crirninal force, to compel any person to do rvhat he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanalion.- An assembly rn'hich was not unlaudll when it asscmbled, may subscquently become an unlawful assembly."

12. Section - 143 of IPC deals with punishment for the offence committed under Scction - I 41 of IPC. Thc same is extracted as under: * j.:{43. Punishment. Whocver is a membcr rurlawfirl assembly, shall be punished of an ) 7 KI-.J Crl.l'. No.5l33 of 2025 imprisonment of either description lbr a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."

13. Scction - 146 of IPC deals with 'rioting". Ihe same is cxtractcd as under " 146. Rioting. Whcnever lorcc or violcnce is used by an unlarvlul assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of thc common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilry of the off'ence of rioting."

14. Section - 147 of IPC deals with 'punishment lor rioLing' The same is extractcd as under: "147. Punishment for rioting.- Whocver is guilty of riotine, shall be punished with imprisonment o[ either description for a term which may extend to two years, or r.vith fine, or il,ith both."

15. Seotion - 340 of IPC deals with 'wrongful confinemcnt,.. The same is extracted as under: "340.Wrongful confinement.- whoever u,rongfully restrains any person in such a mirnner as to prevent that person tiom proceeding bcyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "rvrongfully to conhne" that person."

16. Section 341 of IPC deals with 'punishment for wrongful rcstraint'. Thc same is extracted as under i I 8 K],.J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment tbr a term which ma), extend to one month, or with hnc rvhich may extend to five hundred rupees. or with both."

17. Section - 290 of IPC deals with 'punishment lor public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for'. The same is extracted as under: "290. Punishment for public nuisance in cascs not otherwise provided for. Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to lwo hundred rupees."

18. Section - 149 of IPC deals with 'every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution ol common object'. The same is extractcd as under "149. Evcry member of unlawful assembly guiltv of offence committed in prosecution of common object.- If an offence is commifted by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be tikely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time j 9 KI-.J Crl.l). No.5l3i of 2025 of the committing ol that offbnce, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence ."

19. In vieu,of the aforesaid discussion, it is apt to note that to attract the otfence under Section - l4l of IPC. there should be the fu llowing ingredients (i) I here must be an assembly ol flve or more persons; (ii) The membcrs of the assembly must have a common object; (iii)The common object must be any one of thc follorving five; (a) to overawe by criminal lorce or show of criminal force, the Gorcrnment or an1 puhlic servant. (b) to resisl the execution olan1, law or lega[ process, or (c) to commit mischief or criminal trespass or other otTences, (d) by criminal force or shor.v of criminal fbrce to take or obtain possession of any property or deprive enjoymcnt of a right of way or use of water or other incorporeal rights. (e) by criminal forcc or show of criminal forcc to compel any other person to do rvhat he is legally not bound to do or omit to do that which he is legally bound to do. t0 KL,J Crl.P. No.5ll3 o1 2025

20. A readins of the Section indicates that even, assemblv of fivc or more persons by itself r.vill not become an unlawful assembly. An asscmbly of five or more persons will become unlawful only when they have a common object and thc said object talls within the categories mentioned as first to fifth in Section - l4l of IPC. When the common object of thc assembly does not fall within any of the five categorics spccificd in Section - 14 I . cvcn if thc numbcr of the assembly is more than fivc, the act alleged will not attract the offence of unlawful asscmbly. Thus the essence of the offence of unlawful assembly lies in the consensus of purposc of morc than five persons to commit an act spccified in Section - l4l of IPC

21. It is apposite to notice that of the five categories in the provision, three ol them have criminal force as a necessary ingredient. 'F-orce' is defined in Section - 349 of IPC, while 'criminal force' is defined in Section - 350 of IPC. The intentional use of force for committing an offence or for causing injury, fcar or annoyancc rs an essential requirement of criminal force. fhe remaining two facets requirc resistance to the execution of law or 1l KI,J Cd.P. No.513l of 2025 of legal process or the commission of the offence of mischief or criminal trespass

22. The principle constituting the offence of unlawful assembly have been succinctly analyzed by the Apex Court in Masalti v. State of Utta r Pradesh6 and in Akthar Alam alias Aktarul Sheikh v. State of West BengalT. Reference to the decision in Aravindan v. State of Kerala8 is also relevant. In Aravindan's case (Supra). the Kerala Iligh Court observed that "the mere laot that an assembly consists of five or more persons is likely to disturb the public peacc does not prove that the common object of the assembly is one of those enumerated in the Section But there, Section - 15 I of IPC may comc in and it has been held that the common object must bc an immediate one and not to be carricd out at some future time.

23. As mcntioned earlier, Scction - l4l ofIPC significantly uses the words 'criminal forcc' in thc three lacets of the provision Thus, a protest or an assembly of persons without any criminal force or show of criminal force w,ould not make the assemblv ORDER CRLP.No.5133 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 7L