SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Babu Lal Marandi S/o Late Chhotu Marndi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State.
2. In all these writ petitions, common questions of fact and law are involved, that’s why all these petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.
3. In all these petitions, prayers are made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023, registered under Sections 147, 148, 188, 109, 353, 332, 427 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
4. The said Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 was registered alleging therein that the political party Bhartiya Janta Party, had organized a protest against the Government of Jharkhand near the Project Bhawan (Government of Jharkhand). The District administration, in order to maintain law and order, had directed deployed additional police force and magistrate in the city of Ranchi. The informant was deployed along near the Dhurwa Gollambar (cross road) on the road leading from Dhurwa Gollambar (cross road) to Prabhat Tara field along with B
Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 637
Anita Thakur & Ors. vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir
Dharmesh Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar
In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident
Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024) 4 SCC 156
Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
M. Narayandas vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 251
Manik Taneja vs. State of Karnataka
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 324
The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, and proceedings against leaders of a peaceful protest were quashed due to lack of direct....
FIR for unlawful assembly and wrongful restraint during road-blocking protest to pressure police not quashed as allegations disclose prima facie offence; no mini-trial at quashing stage despite right....
Mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not impose liability without evidence of common intent; the right to protest must be safeguarded unless proven harmful.
The court found that peaceful protests are constitutionally protected and that charges of unlawful assembly and disobedience were unsustainable due to lack of evidence for assault or criminal force.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.