Point of Law: Section 147 read as Punishment for rioting.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.8, dated 28.11.2021 under Ss. 341, 147 and 149 IPC and S.174 of the Indian Railway Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Railway Police Station, Shimla alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record tha the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceeding, came to be lodged at the behest of one Deepak, Station Master, Railway Station, Jutogh, who alleged that on 28.1.2021, at 10.55 am, around 250 persons alongwith present petitioners sat on railway track and obstructed the movement of trail No. 52456 DN H. Queen SML-KLK EXP, as a result of which, persons, travelling therein were put to undue harassment. Above named complainant alleged that on account of agitation, persons sat on railway track obstructed railway traffic for three and a half hours and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against them. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceeding came to be lodged against the petitioners herein. After completion of investigation, police has presented Challan in the competent court of law but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law on the ground that no case, much less case under aforesaid provisions of law, is made out against the petitioners.

3. It has been averred in the petition that on the date of alleged incident, petitioners alongwith other persons, had gathered on railway track to lodge their protest against death of a person, who lost his life on account of negligence of the Railway administration. It has been averred in the petition that petitioner No.1, who was the then municipal councilor, had repeatedly requested the railway authorities to make provision of an overhead bridge enabling public to cross the railway track safely. Since no steps came to be taken at the behest of railway authorities, people of area alongwith petitioner No.1 were constrained to register their protest. It has been further stated in the petition that the petitioners alongwith other persons protested in a peaceful manner and no damage was caused to the public property. Petitioners categorically denied the factum with regard to theirs having stalled/obstructed railway traffic for three and a half hours. They claimed that they sat on the railway track and after being assured by railway authorities, that adequate steps shall be taken for construction of overhead bridge, they disbursed.

4. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, while making this Court peruse the provisions contained under S.341 IPC, vehemently argued that no complaint, if any, ever came to be lodged at the behest of any person, who was allegedly, illegally and wrongfully confined by the petitioners, rather, complaint was made by Station Master, who simply stated that the petitioners alongwith other persons, obstructed railway track. He submitted that since there is no specific allegation, if any, of wrongful confinement of any of the individual or group of persons, case under S.341 IPC is not specifically made out. Similarly, while making this court peruse provisions contained under S.147 and 149 IPC, Mr. Sharma argued that though persons more than five were present on the spot, but there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that after having formed an unlawful assembly, they created ruckus rather, they all peacefully lodged their protest and after being assured by the authorities, that steps would be taken to construct overhead bridge, they left the spot.

5. Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, learned Central Government Counsel, while refuting aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel