(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN & Ors. v. THE STAT EOF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER & Ors.

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE, BY SHO MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION, REPRSETNED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. (BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.200/2023 (CR.NO.132 OF 2019, MANGALORE NORTH P.S) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, 120(B), 109 R/W 149 OF IPC - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR AND SEC.2(A), 2(B) OF PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this Petition, Petitioners seek the following relief: "WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC No.200/2023 (Crime No.132/2019) Mangalore North Police Station), pending on the file of VI Additional Judge, & D.K.Mangalore, for offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 341,505, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, (12)(B), 109 r/w 149 of IPC and 2(A), 2(B) of Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act, in the interest of justice. " Sessions District

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned HCGP for Respondents and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the Respondent instituted the impugned proceedings which are now pending in S.C.No.200/2023 before the VI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, for the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 341,505, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, (12)(B), 109 r/w 149 of IPC and 2(A), 2(B) of Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act, 1981. In the said proceedings, Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 29, and 60.

This Court on the last date of hearing, i.e., on

30.08.2024, recorded submission made by the learned counsel Petitioners that the issue in the present lis is covered by a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in CRL.P.NO.4902/2023 between ATHAULLA JOKATTE AND OTHERS VS. THE STAT EOF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, disposed of on 19.06.2023 wherein the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205 was followed by this Court. In response, the submission made by the learned Additional SPP was also recorded by this Court as hereunder: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR "Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the issue in the lis is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. List this matter after two weeks. "

In addition thereto, in ATHAULLA JOKATTE AND OTHERS VS. THE STAT EOF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Criminal Case No.1131 of 2020 pending on the file of the II Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Mangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 336, 120B, 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

2. Heard Sri Lethif B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HighCourt Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6763 of 2020 disposed of on 11-3-2022. This Court following the earlier - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows: decided disposed "2. The issue in the petition is akin to Crl.P.No.3916/2018 17.02.2020, wherein this Court has facts and examined offences petitioners examining, this Court has held as follows: alleged therein. While identical against “4. The gist of the complaint is that on 23.05.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., received a credible information that a group of people gathered on Queen’s Road shouting slogans against the government. Immediately, he went to the spot and found that 50 young men assembled illegally and disturbed the public and vehicles without prior permission the station. On enquiry he found that they are the members of Campus Front of India Karnataka and protesting against interference religious and personal freedoms by imposing dress code in ‘AIIMS Exam’ which is against the personal and religious rights of our Constitution. Immediately they were disbursed and a case has been registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that though there is no substantial material as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR is his ingredients against to 48. against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48, the respondent have investigated the case and have filed the charge petitioners/accused Nos.1 further It submission that in order to file a charge sheet under Section 143 of IPC, the unlawful assembly must satisfy contemplated under Section 141 of IPC but none of the ingredients are satisfied in this case. It is his further submission that mere presence in an unlawful assembly, cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object, they were actuated by the common object and that object is one of those set out under Section 141 of IPC. It is his further submission that if the common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted either under Section 143 of IPC or under Section 149 of IPC. It is his further prosecution has to prove the overt- acts as against the persons who have been alleged as a member of unlawful assembly.

In order to substantiate his said contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205. It is his further submission that as per the Licensing and Controlling of submission - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order 2009, the permission is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention to conduct the meeting, protest, to hear a public speech social, including political, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access. The said condition specially says that no permission or license is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention of conducting meeting to protest.

It is petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 have given the letter dated 20.05.2017 seeking permission but no such permission Commissioner of Police., under such circumstance, said assembly cannot be held as an unlawful assembly and the provisions of Sections 141, 143,147, 149, 188 of IPC are not attracted. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. submission granted specific

Per contra, learned High Court Government vehemently Pleader argued and submitted that as per the Licensing Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) order, 2009 the congregation of more than 250 persons is required but as per Section Controlling - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR indicate 141 of IPC, an assembly of five or more persons is considered to be an unlawful assembly and if they have assembled with a common object, circumstance, accused persons can be prosecuted for the alleged offences. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint and other materials clearly they were intending to proceed to Raj Bhavan in that light, they have obstructed the public traffic, public movement and thereby, provisions of Section 141 of IPC and other provisions of law. It is his further submission that there are independent eye-witnesses and they have also categorically stated with regard to the overt-acts of each of the accused persons and there is ample materials to connect the accused persons to the alleged crime. On these ground, he prayed to dismiss the petition. they have violated

I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. prosecution

On perusal of records, it is the case petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 have assembled protesting and were against interference and dress code imposed by AIIMS exam and also have not obtained any permission - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR indicates from the concerned Authorities. But as could be seen from the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order, 2009 assembly means a congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention of conducting meeting or protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access, license is required only when more than 250 persons are there. Admittedly in the instant case, the contents of the complaint and other materials that only 50 persons have assembled. In that light, a license said to have been is not necessary as per the Order of CRL.P No. 4902 of 2023 consideration of this Court is that whether petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 had constituted an unlawful assembly as per Section 141 of IPC? In order to attract assembly must satisfy five ingredients which have been stated therein but on close reading of the contents of the complaint, charge sheet material and other materials, it indicates that none of the ingredients are present as contemplated under Section 141 of IPC." said provision, assembly remains

Be that as it may. If 50 persons have assembled at a particular place, then under such circumstance, it cannot be held as an - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR unlawful assembly. Mere presence of a person in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 of IPC. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH paragraph No.13, it has been observed as under: (Quoted supra) IPC has “13. Coming to the others who were armed with double-barrelled guns and country-made pistols, the question is regarding applicability of Section 149 IPC. Section 149 foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common in an intention.

On close perusal of the charge sheet material, it indicates that none of the ingredients specify in Section 141 of IPC are present so as to attract the provisions of Sections 141, 143, 149, 188 of IPC. When that being the case, then under such proceedings circumstances, against initiated to 48 Petitioners/accused Nos.1 appears to be not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.23259/2017 pending on the file of VIII Additional CMM, Bengalulru for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC is hereby quashed.” The aforesaid order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court would cover, the case at hand on all its - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR alleged fours. That apart, there were no witnesses that would speak about the incident petitioners which has happened in a broad day light, apart from all the witnesses examined being police officials. " against

4. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra, the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.1131 of 2020 before the II Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Mangaluru, stands quashed. "

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material placed on record will indicate that the Petitioners cannot be held to be guilty of the alleged offences and also in the light of the principles laid down in CHARAN SINGH supra. Hence, I am of the view that the continuation of impugned proceedings qua the Accused Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 29, and 60 would amount to abuse the process of law warranting interference of this Court in the present Petition. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:21487 CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024 HC-KAR In the result, I pass the following: ORDER 1) The petition is hereby allowed. 2) The proceedings in S.C.No.200/2023 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, for the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 341,505, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, (12)(B), 109 r/w 149 of IPC and 2(A), 2(B) of Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act, 1981 Petitioners are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BSV List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1