Charges under IPC Section 353 cannot be sustained without evidence of assault or criminal force against public servants; proceedings quashed due to lack of merit.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing of the proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No. 248 of 2020 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondia, registered on the basis of charge-sheet no. 88 of 2020 at Gondia City, Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 149, 188, 283, 291, 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

3. In the First Information Report lodged against the applicants it is alleged that on 3rdAugust, 2019 a public meeting i.e. Mahajanadesh Yatra was held at Indira Gandhi Stadium, Gondia which was attended by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra. At that time, while Hon'ble Chief Minister was on the way to the venue of the meeting, the convener of General Class Organizing Committee and Save Merit Save Nation Committee, Gondia and its President applicant no.1 and its members other applicants gathered an illegal congregation or formed an unlawful assembly from Jaistambh to Nehru Chowk and stood road side forming a human chain, wearing aprons on which various slogans written, they were also holding banners in their hands. They were shouting slogans and clapping to protest the issue of reservation. Police Inspector Umesh Patil by issuing notice under Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1stAugust, 2019 called upon applicants and prevented them from protesting and disturbing the law and order. At the time of arrival of Hon'ble Chief Minister there were around 60 to 65 persons who had allegedly gathered a gang on the street at Nehru Chowk, Gondia and blocked the convoy of the Hon'ble Chief Minister by creating a road block and also endangered the life of people. They ignored the direct orders given by the police officers who asked them to maintain peace and tranquility. They pushed the police officers while they were performing their government duties. Thus, they have violated the order issued under Section 37(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 prohibiting congregation of five persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case is numbered as above.

5. Heard Shri Mishra, learned advocate for the applicant and Shri Umale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State.

6. By relying on Government Resolutions dated 14thMarch, 2016 and 16thDecember, 2020, the learned advocate for the applicants submitted that Government has taken a decision to withdraw the cases in respect of political and social protests lodged prior to 1stNovember, 2014 on certain conditions mentioned in the said resolution, for example where there is no damage to the public or private property etc. By Government Resolution dated 16thNovember, 2020, cases pending till 31stDecember, 2019 are permitted to be withdrawn. He submits that applicants' case was recommended by the concerned police station for withdrawal to the Committee. However, the Committee has ignored this aspect and rejected the proposal by impugned decision dated 22ndJune, 2021. He submits that Committee has erred in rejecting the proposal of withdrawal of cases of the applicants' as their case is squarely covered by the condition mentioned in Government Resolution dated 14thMarch, 2016. He further submits that no ingredients of Section 353 of Indian Penal Code are made out against the applicants, as there is no allegation of assault or use of criminal force by the applicants. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 2184 of 2024 in B.N.John Vs. State of U.P and another.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant /State strongly opposed the application by relying upon reply affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer. He submits that since Sectio