Mere presence in an assembly does not constitute unlawful assembly liability absent common intent; insufficient evidence against petitioners led to quashing of charges.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri Sandesh J. Chouta appearing for the petitioner.

2. Learned Senior Counsel taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to demonstrate that the offences alleged are not made out even to its remoteness. He would further contend that the issue in the lis is answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.4067/2023.

3. Learned HCGP would not dispute the position of law as is laid down by this Court. Therefore, the submission is in union.

4. This Court in Crl.P.No.4067/2023 has held as follows:

“3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by two orders passed by, one by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3916/2018 disposed on 17.02.2020 and one by this Court in Crl.P.No.7575/2022 disposed on 22.08.2022, wherein held as follows:

In Crl.P.No.3916/2018 disposed on 17.02.2020 has held as follows:

" This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No.23259/2017 pending on the file of VIII Additional CMM, Bengalulru for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.

3. Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal

4. The gist of the complaint is that on 23.05.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., received a credible information that a group of people gathered on Queen’s Road shouting slogans against the Government. Immediately, he went to the spot and found that 50 young men assembled illegally and disturbed the public and vehicles without prior permission from the station. On enquiry he found that they are the members of Campus Front of India Karnataka and protesting against interference religious and personal freedoms by imposing dress code in ‘AIIMS Exam’ which is against the personal and religious rights of our Constitution. Immediately they were disbursed and a case has been registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that though there is no substantial material as against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48, the respondent have investigated the case and have filed the charge sheet against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48. It is his further submission that in order to file a charge. sheet under Section 143 of IPC, the unlawful assembly must satisfy the ingredients as contemplated under Section 141 of IPC but none of the ingredients are satisfied in this case. It is his further submission that mere presence in an unlawful assembly, cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object, they were actuated by the common object and that object is one of those set out under Section 141 of IPC. It is his further submission that if the common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted either under Section 143 of IPC or under Section 149 of IPC. It is his further submission that the prosecution has to prove the overtacts as against the persons who have been alleged as a member of unlawful assembly. In order to substantiate his said contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205 . It is his further submission that as per the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order 2009, the permission is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250