Alleged assembly not meeting the criteria of an unlawful assembly and absence of specific allegations and evidence led to the quashing of proceedings under Section 143 IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in S.T.C.No.356 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannarkudi and quash the same as against the petitioner.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in S.T.C.No.356 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannarkudi and quash the same as against the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the Final Report are that on 08.03.2022 at about 17.20 hours, near Koothanallur, the accused in this case Nasima Banu and other accused without obtaining prior permission obstructed the traffic. Reason for their arrest is that they had not obtained prior permission for conducting the road roko; that this road roko was arranged and conducted during the spread of Covid-19 and that the accused had wrongfully restrained free flow of traffic and movement of the public from 17.20 hours to 17.30 hours. Therefore, the final report was filed under Section 143 and 341 I.P.C.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner and other accused had only participated in peaceful protest. They are not indulged in any violation or any illegal activities. They have not prevented the free flow of traffic or the public. No independent witness was examined in support of the case of the prosecution and the witnesses examined in this case are all Police officials. In such circumstances, this petition is filed for quashing the proceedings.

4. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the witnesses examined in this case even though Police officials, have given statement supporting the case of the prosecution that petitioner and other accused had unlawfully assembled, indulged in road roko, wrongfully restrained the public and vehicle movement. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

6. This Court in Crl.O.P.No.23022 of 2022 while dealing with quashing of case registered under Section 143 & 341 IPC observed that only if the unlawful assembly confirms to the definition of unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC, the member of unlawful assembly can be prosecuted under Section 143 IPC. It is also relevant to note the definition of Unlawful Assembly:

“Unlawful Assembly-

An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is –

(i) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

(ii) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

(iii) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

(iv) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

(v) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.-

7. In the case before hand, there is no specific allegations against the petitioner or any of the member of the unlawful assembly that they used criminal force with a common object of overawe the Central or State Government, resisted the execution of any law or of any process, committed any mischief or criminal trespass, take possession of any property, deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or oth