The fundamental right to peaceful protest and the absence of evidence for alleged criminal offenses influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

C. V. Bhadang, J. - Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Phadte, the learned Counsel, waives service on behalf of the respondent no.3. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short), the petitioner (accused no.A7), seeks quashing of FIR No.28/2017 dated 11.04.2017 registered with P.S. Valpoi and consequent prosecution in Criminal Case No.7/18 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Valpoi. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner along with 44 others are facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short).

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner and the co-accused including 23 women are residents of Village Sonshi, Sattari, which happens to be a small village. There are about 13 mining leases surrounding the said village which saw the influx of six mining companies. The residents of the village have been complaining about the mining operations and the consequent damage to the environment and the air, water and sound pollution resulting out of the mining activities and the transport of the mining ore, since long. According to the residents of the said village, despite a memorandum from Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) banning the transport of the ore through village roads, the transport of the ore continues unabated in overloaded trucks at times not covered properly resulting into immense pollution in the village thereby adversely affecting the health of the residents.

4. The incident in question occurred on 11.04.2017. As per the complaint lodged by Mr. Vijay Mehta, the Mine Manager of M/s. Cosme Costa and Sons Gaval, Sonshi, the petitioner and the other co-accused at about 14.00 hours unlawfully blocked the main road near Queni Mine entrance, thereby resulting into stoppage of transportation of iron ore. It was also claimed that the petitioners who had gathered at the spot, threatened the drivers of the trucks with "dire consequences" if they do not stop the trucks plying on the route. It appears that the police staff comprising of ASI Tulsidas Dhuri and others including some lady police constables (LPCs) arrived at the spot and the petitioner and the co-accused were rounded up and were taken into custody. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Mr. Vijay Mehta, an offence at Crime No.28 of 2017 came to be registered against the petitioner and others, under the aforesaid sections and after investigation they have been chargesheeted.

5. According to the petitioners, they have been raising bonafide concerns and complaints against the mining operations and transport of the mining ore which is resulting into severe damage to the environment and also resulting into air, water and sound pollution and their complaints have gone un-redressed. It is contended that the petitioner and the other co-accused were only peacefully demonstrating at the spot and there was no blockade as such, nor any overact committed as the petitioner and the other co-accused peacefully courted their arrest in protest of the non-redressal of their genuine and bonafide concerns.

6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner and the other coaccused were in custody for about nine days before they were released on bail. According to the petitioner, the prosecution is attended with malafides and the prosecution witnesses are either not eye witnesses to the incident or they are witnesses connected with the mining companies or staff members of the contractors transporting the ore. It is thus contended that they are interested witnesses. It is submitted that since after the incident the entire mining operation in the State has been stopped as per the orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the mater