IMPORTANT POINT
The right to peaceful assembly is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, and charges of unlawful assembly and obstruction must be supported by clear evidence of overt acts, which were not present in this case.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

Heard Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda, in Criminal Revision No.32 of 2017, whereby the said petition has been dismissed and the learned court has affirmed the order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godda in connection with Poraiahat P.S. Case No.162 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.894 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godda.

3. The F.I.R was registered as per the written report of the A.S.I. dated 04.09.2009, in brief is that on 04.09.2009 at about 05.00 P.M. the petitioner herein held demonstrations and blocked the road near the Primary Health Centre, Poraiyahat. That it was further alleged in the report that the Petitioner along with his associates did not let the patrol vehicle of the complainant pass and blocked the said road and caused jam on both sides of the road. It has further been alleged that the Petitioner along with other leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party did not pay heed to the requests of the complainant to remove the jam and started giving speeches on the road and that even when the SDO and SDPO reached the spot and requested the Petitioner and his associates to remove the jam, they did not pay any heed to such requests and further became aggressive. That finally, at the request of the petitioner, the jam was removed at about 11.45 p.m.

4. Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and others under section 143, 186, 283, 290, 291 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken by the learned court on 08.06.2013 under those sections of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in the First Information Report the allegations are made that the petitioner and others were agitating in Poraiyahat Block. Further by way of taking the contents of the First Information Report he submits that there is no overt act and the petitioner himself as asked the demonstrators to leave the place which has come in the First Information Report. He further submits that the ingredients of those sections are not made out. By way of referring to the definition of ‘unlawful assembly’ he refers to section 141 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that there is no criminal force or obstruction in discharging the duty by any of the public servant. He further submits penal sections of section 141 I.P.C is section 143 I.P.C. He submits that in light of definition of section 186 I.P.C. there is no voluntary obstruction in discharging the duty by any of the public servant and in view of that, section 186 of the I.P.C is not attracted. He submits that there was no danger and only a peaceful demonstration was going on and in view of that, section 283 I.P.C is not attracted. He submits that section 290 and section 291 I.P.C are with regard to public nuisance and repeat or continuance of such nuisance respectively. He submits that those sections are also not attracted. By way of referring section 353 I.P.C he submits that there was no criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his duty and in view of that, section 353 I.P.C is not attracted. So far section 353 I.P.C is concerned, he relied in the case of Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 and he refers to paragraph nos.12 and 14 of the said judgment, which are as under:

12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether wh