Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Tukaram @ Manoj Parab and Rohan Kalangutkar, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 2/2021 registered at Valpoi Police Station (later transferred to Crime Branch) and the consequent Charge Sheet No. 96/2023 dated 25.08.2023, insofar as it concerned them. The FIR arose from protests in January 2021 against a proposal to establish an IIT in Valpoi, Goa. On 6 January 2021, at about 11:30 a.m., a group of villagers gathered at the proposed site to protest, leading to police intervention and arrests. Later, at around 16:00 hours, a crowd of about 300 persons, including the petitioners, marched to the Valpoi Police Station, raised slogans, and blocked the main road. The FIR alleged that the crowd's leaders appealed to maintain the blockade while threatening to storm the police station and cause destruction of government property and injury to staff. The petitioners were charged under Sections 143, 145, 147, 341, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioners argued that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute any offence against them, as there was no allegation of their involvement in the morning incident, no wielding of weapons, no unlawful object, and no actual destruction of property. The State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations must be considered in their entirety and that the petitioners were part of a mob that threatened violence. The court, applying the test from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, examined the FIR and found that the allegations did not make out any of the charged offences. The court noted that the FIR had two parts: the morning incident (where petitioners were not present) and the afternoon march. Regarding the afternoon march, the only allegations were that the petitioners were part of a crowd that marched to the police station, raised slogans, and blocked the road. There were no allegations of an unlawful object, use of weapons, or actual destruction of property. The court held that mere presence in a large crowd does not constitute an unlawful assembly unless there is a common unlawful object, citing Madan Singh v. State of Bihar and Sitaram v. Emperor. The court also emphasized the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) and cautioned against stifling democratic protests through vague criminal charges. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the petitioners, and made the rule absolute without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bhajan Lal Principles - Sections 143, 147, 353, 149 IPC - The court examined whether allegations in FIR, taken at face value, constitute any offence. Held that mere participation in a crowd marching to a police station and raising slogans, without any allegation of unlawful object, wielding weapons, or actual destruction of property, does not make out offences under the charged sections. FIR and chargesheet quashed. (Paras 10-14) B) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Section 141, 149 IPC - The court held that mere presence in a large assembly is not an offence unless the assembly is inspired by an illegal object as specified in Section 141 IPC. Citing Madan Singh v. State of Bihar, the court reiterated that presence alone is insufficient; there must be evidence of sharing a common unlawful object. (Paras 15-16) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Peaceful Assembly - Article 19(1)(b) - The court observed that prosecutions must not stifle democratic agitations as long as people do not take law into their own hands or indulge in violence. Vague charges lacking essential ingredients of penal offences cannot dilute the fundamental right to assemble peaceably. (Para 17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and chargesheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 341, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 IPC should be quashed when the allegations only state that they were part of a crowd that marched to a police station and raised slogans, without any allegation of unlawful object, use of weapons, or actual destruction of property.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside FIR No. 2/2021 registered at Valpoi Police Station (now transferred to Crime Branch) and Charge Sheet No. 96/2023 dated 25.08.2023 filed before J.M.F.C., Valpoi and registered as Case No. IPC/33/2023 insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Rule made absolute without any cost order.
Law Points
- Mere presence in a large crowd does not constitute an unlawful assembly unless there is a common unlawful object
- Right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) must not be stifled by vague charges
- Test for quashing FIR under Bhajan Lal: allegations taken at face value must prima facie constitute an offence
