IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is the necessity to establish the essential elements of each offence, and the court's authority to quash proceedings if the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.

ORDER :

The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 69 respectively in C.C.No.422/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor seek to quash the final report and all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of FIR No.584/2019 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 447, 506, 188 & 294(b) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The matter relates to a church namely, Bethel Suloko Cathedral Church, Perumbavoor. Based on the complaint filed by respondent No.3, the Vicar of the Church, Perumbavoor Police registered FIR No.584/2019 alleging the aforesaid offences.

The prosecution alleges the following:-

3. Respondent No.3, the defacto complainant came to the church on 10.03.2019 at about 7.30 AM. The petitioners who assembled there obstructed respondent No.3. The Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor, had issued prohibitory injunction in favour of the de facto complainant as per order in I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No.31 of 2018. The petitioners violated the order of injunction passed by the Munsiff’ Court. Accused No.11 showered abusive words towards the women assembled there. Accused No.4 intimidated the de facto complainant. The petitioners themselves formed an unlawful assembly on the premises of the church.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Annexure-A3 Final Report does not reveal the offences alleged. It is further submitted that the factional dispute among the parishners of the church resulted in the registration of the crime. The petitioners assembled in the Church only to offer prayers. They never had the mens rea for the commission of the offences. The prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence of unlawful assembly.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that there are sufficient materials to show that the petitioners themselves formed an unlawful assembly and committed the offences alleged. It is submitted that the members of the unlawful assembly had a common intention for the commission of the offences.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the prosecution could establish all the ingredients of the offences alleged.

8. The prosecution essentially alleges the offences punishable under Sections 143 & 147 r/w Section 149 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners themselves formed an unlawful assembly.

9. Unlawful assembly as defined in Section 141 of the IPC is an assembly of five or more persons if their common object is –

1. to overawe by criminal force

(a) the Central Government, or

(b) the State Government, or

(c) the Legislature, or

(d) any public servant in the exercise of lawful power;

2. to resist the execution of law or legal process;

3. to commit mischief, criminal trespass, or any other offence;

4. by criminal force;

(a) to take or obtain possession of any property, or

(b) to deprive any person of any incorporeal right, or

(c) to enforce any right or supposed right;

5. by criminal force to compel any person--

(a) to do what he is legally bound to do, or

(b) to omit what he is legally entitled to do.

The foundation of this Section is the combination of five or more persons, united in the purpose of committing a criminal offence, and the consensus of purpose is itself an offence distinct from the criminal offence which these persons agree and intend to commit. The law does not declare the mere assemblage of men, however large illegal. The essence of the offence of unlawful assembly is the common object of the persons forming the assembly. Whether the object is in their minds when they come together or whether it occurs to them afterwards, is not material. But it is necessary that the object should be common to the persons who comprise the assembly.

10. The final report does not specifically sta