Assembly must meet specific criteria to constitute unlawful assembly; mere presence is insufficient for liability.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

"Wherefore, the Petitioners prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1970/2024 of Surathkal Police Station, D.K.District for the offence punishable under section 143, 147, 283 R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code , on the file of JMFC (II court), Mangalore, D.K. District, which is produced as ANNEXURE-'A', in the above case, in the interests of justice."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.6763/2020 disposed on 11.03.2022, wherein it has held as follows:

"The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2912/2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143 , 151 read with Section 149 of the IPC pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada district.

2. The issue in the petition is akin to what is decided in Crl.P.No.3916/2018 disposed on 17.02.2020, wherein this Court has examined the identical facts and offences alleged against the petitioners therein. While so examining, this Court has held as follows:

“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 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 . 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 of or under Section 149 of . It is his further submission that the prosecution has to prove the overt-acts 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 ofCHARAN 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 persons assembling at one place with an intention to conduct the meeting, protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access. The said condition specially says that no permission o