1. Petition to quash FIR for offences under IPC arising from a protest march and alleged assault on teachers. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(HP) 707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Dildar Ali Batt and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and Another – Respondents
Cr.MMO No. 1092 of 2024
Decided On : 20-07-2026
Important Points
Mere presence in a protest march does not attract vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC unless the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly; quashing is warranted where the complainant and victims specifically name other assailants and the accused attempted to save victims.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR / Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.528
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.143, S.147, S.149, S.332, S.353, S.452, S.504, S.506
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161, S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.143, S.147, S.149, S.332, S.353, S.452, S.504, S.506
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161, S.482
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 353, 332, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 - Quashing of FIR - Scope of inherent power - High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice - Principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and subsequent decisions reiterated.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 149 - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Mere presence at the scene does not ipso facto render a person a member of an unlawful assembly unless he shares the common object - A passive onlooker or innocent bystander is not liable - Liability arises only if the accused knew that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object - Reliance on Zainul vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No.1187 of 2014, decided 07.10.2025) and Charan Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205.
(C) Quashing of criminal proceedings - Where the complainant and victims specifically name other persons as assailants and the petitioners are shown to have attempted to save the victims, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners - Continuing trial would be an abuse of process.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were part of a protest march organized by residents after a sexual assault complaint against a teacher. During the march, some members became violent and beat teachers. The FIR was lodged against several persons, including the petitioners. The complainant stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were standing near the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and attempted to save the teachers. The Medical Legal Certificates (MLCs) of the victims did not name the petitioners as assailants. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not part of the unlawful assembly as they distanced themselves from the unruly mob and helped the teachers. The complainant and victims specifically named the actual assailants. There was no material to show that the petitioners shared the common object of the unlawful assembly or knew that beatings would be given. The court found that the chances of conviction were bleak and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners, who were part of a protest march but allegedly did not participate in the beatings, could be held vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC, and whether the FIR and proceedings should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere presence in an assembly does not attract constructive liability under Section 149 IPC unless the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. Since the petitioners attempted to save the victims and were not named by any victim, they could not be considered members of the unlawful assembly. Therefore, the FIR was liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. Result : FIR No.82 of 2017, dated 29.07.2017, registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, under Sections 452, 353, 332, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC, along with consequential proceedings, quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. Petitioners acquitted. Petition allowed.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 149 - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Mere presence at the scene does not ipso facto render a person a member of an unlawful assembly unless he shares the common object - A passive onlooker or innocent bystander is not liable - Liability arises only if the accused knew that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object - Reliance on Zainul vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No.1187 of 2014, decided 07.10.2025) and Charan Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205.
(C) Quashing of criminal proceedings - Where the complainant and victims specifically name other persons as assailants and the petitioners are shown to have attempted to save the victims, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners - Continuing trial would be an abuse of process.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were part of a protest march organized by residents after a sexual assault complaint against a teacher. During the march, some members became violent and beat teachers. The FIR was lodged against several persons, including the petitioners. The complainant stated that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were standing near the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and attempted to save the teachers. The Medical Legal Certificates (MLCs) of the victims did not name the petitioners as assailants. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not part of the unlawful assembly as they distanced themselves from the unruly mob and helped the teachers. The complainant and victims specifically named the actual assailants. There was no material to show that the petitioners shared the common object of the unlawful assembly or knew that beatings would be given. The court found that the chances of conviction were bleak and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners, who were part of a protest march but allegedly did not participate in the beatings, could be held vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC, and whether the FIR and proceedings should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere presence in an assembly does not attract constructive liability under Section 149 IPC unless the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. Since the petitioners attempted to save the victims and were not named by any victim, they could not be considered members of the unlawful assembly. Therefore, the FIR was liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process. Result : FIR No.82 of 2017, dated 29.07.2017, registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, under Sections 452, 353, 332, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of IPC, along with consequential proceedings, quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. Petitioners acquitted. Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Aman Parth Sharma and Mr. Rishabh Negi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.
For the Petitioners:Mr. Aman Parth Sharma and Mr. Rishabh Negi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed innocence and lack of involvement; State argued they were part of unlawful mob. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. FIR and consequential proceedings quashed qua petitioners; accused acquitted. (Para 25 )
4. What is the scope of the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings?
The High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice, particularly where allegations do not constitute an offence or are mala fide. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. Does mere presence at the scene make a person a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC?
No. Mere presence does not ipso facto render a person a member; the prosecution must establish that the person shared the common object of the assembly. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. What are the two limbs of Section 149 IPC regarding constructive liability?
First limb: offence committed in prosecution of common object. Second limb: members knew offence was likely to be committed. Both require common object. (Para 21 , 22 )
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing FIR No.82 of 2017, dated 29.07.2017, registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, under Sections 452, 353, 332, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, as well as the consequent proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that Respondent No.2, Mr. Rajdeen, who at the relevant time was working as Officiating Principal at Government Senior Secondary School Khushinagar, Churah, District Chamba, made a complaint at Police Station Tissa, pursuant to which FIR sought to be quashed came to be registered, alleging therein that on 29.07.2017, pursuant to complaint of sexual harassment of a female student lodged against one teacher, namely Tek Chand, who was in Police custody, public at large organized a protest march with hoardings in their hands and raised slogans, asking the students to leave classes, which caused panic in the school premises. Complainant also alleged that some of the teachers were given beatings. He alleged that though he tried his best to maintain peace and save teachers from the mob, but yet teachers, namely Kesari Singh, Chatar Singh, Bhawani Sharma, and Asha Kumari, were given beatings. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churah, also reached the spot, but mob didn't pacify, rather demanded that the teachers who are on leave may also be called. Petitioners, on the instructions of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churah, called teachers who were on leave. Teachers, namely Bhawani Sharma, Kesari Singh, Surinder Singh and Shyam Lal, reached in school premises, as per directive of Principal, but they were also given beatings. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against several persons, including petitioners herein.
3. Though, after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioners, who claim themselves to be innocent, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR on the ground that though they were part of the peaceful protest march, but never gave beatings to anyone.
4. Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Rishabh Negi, Advocate, representing the petitioners, vehemently argued that as per complaint made by complainant, petitioners, namely Dildar Ali Batt and Parvej Ali Batt, were standing with Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churah, and they also attempted to save teachers from the mob. While making this Court peruse complaint as well as statement made by victims under Section 161 CrPC, Mr. Sharma further argued that no allegation, if any, of either being present in mob or of beating, if any, ever came to be made against respondent No.3, Hasan Mohammad @ Harun, but yet he came to be arraigned as an accused. While making this Court peruse medical evidence adduced on record, Mr. Sharma further argued that victim, at the time of their medical examination, nowhere revealed the name of the petitioners, rather they specifically named certain persons who had allegedly given them beatings, and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for Police to present Challan against present petitioners. He submitted that since for the reasons, taken note hereinabove, case of the prosecution is bound to fail in all probabilities, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed is permitted to sustain, rather petitioners would be unnecessarily put to ordeal of protracted trial, which is otherwise bound to fail.
5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of lodging FIR and presenting Challan in competent Court of law, stated that since it is not in dispute that petit
