Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
NC: 2026:KHC:19941
CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandesh P Nadiger
For the Respondents: B N Jagadeesha
An unlawful assembly requires a proven common object shared among members to establish constructive liability. Mere presence of individuals in a gathering, without evidence of a common object or specific overt acts aligned with such an object, is insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings under relevant penal provisions.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 - Offence of being member of unlawful assembly - Ingredients of Section 141 of IPC must be satisfied for conviction - Mere presence in assembly is insufficient without proof of common object - When charge sheet fails to show common object or specific overt acts attributable to petitioners, proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings registered against them for various offences including being members of an unlawful assembly, rioting, and other related charges. The appellants argued that the assembly did not meet the criteria of an unlawful assembly under the relevant penal statutes and that the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of a common object, which is a necessary ingredient for invoking constructive liability.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that to constitute an unlawful assembly, the assembly must satisfy the five ingredients stated in the penal code. Upon reviewing the records, it was determined that none of the essential ingredients were present. Mere presence in an assembly does not establish liability unless the individual was actuated by a common object shared by the group. The court found the prosecution's material insufficient to support the charges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the assembly of persons constituted an unlawful assembly under the law and whether the petitioners could be prosecuted for the offences invoked despite the lack of evidence establishing individual overt acts or the existence of a common object.
Ratio Decidendi: Liability for an unlawful assembly is anchored in constructive liability where a common object is the sine qua non. If the prosecution fails to establish that the persons assembled shared a common purpose or design as defined by law, the charge cannot be sustained. Consequently, proceedings initiated without fulfilling these mandatory legal requirements constitute an abuse of process.
Result: Criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending before the trial court are quashed.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 602 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 628 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 631 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 641 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 645 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 670 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 679 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 684 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 602/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MOSIN KHAN @ MOSIN
S/O SHABBIR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT: 6TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
2. HIDAYATH @ PAPA
S/O JAMEER PHASHA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT: 6TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
3. SYED KALEEM
S/O SYED RASOOL
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT: SHNANESHWARA TEMPLE,
NEAR 8TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
4. SYED SUBHAN
S/O SYED RAFIQ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT: NOOR A MASIDI BEHIND
RAGI GUDDA SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
5. DADAPEER @ SYED DADAPEER
S/O RAFIQ @ SYED RAFIQ
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT: NOOR A MASIDI BEHIND
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
6. DADAPEER @ KHALANDHAR
S/O INAYATH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT: 2ND CROSS, RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
7. NAYAZ S/O KHAYUM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT: 4TH CROSS, MASIDI BEHIND
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
8. SYED MALIK @ RIHAN @ MALLE
S/O JAFAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT: 13TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
9. SHADMAN S/O GHAFAR
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BACK SIDE,
10TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
10. IRFAN BEG S/O AMJAD BEG
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT: 3RD CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. LATHA W/O. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT: NO.4TH CROSS, RAGIGUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.790/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA.
IN CRL.P NO. 628/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MOSIN @ MOSIN KHAN
S/O SABBIR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT: 6TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
2. SUFI KHAN @ SUFI
SALEEM KHAN @ GUJARI SALIM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT: BEHIND ASHIKA SCHOOL,
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
3. HIDAYATH @ PAPA S/O ZAMEER PASHA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT: 6TH CROSS LEFT SIDE
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204.
4. SYED SUBHAN S/O SYED RAFIQ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT: 8TH CROSS, MASIDI BACK SIDE
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
5. DADAPEER @ KALANDAR
S/O INAYATH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT: 2ND CROSS RIGHT SIDE
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
6. IRFAN
S/O PAKATHI SUBHAN
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT: 4TH CROSS LEFT SIDE
RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
7. NAYAZ S/O KHAIYUM
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT: 4TH CROSS, MASEEDI BACK SIDE,
LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
8. SYED MALLIK @ RIHAN @ MELE
S/O JAFAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT: 13TH CROSS LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
9. SHADMAN S/O GAFAR
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT: NUR - A MASEEDI BACK SIDE
10TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
10. FIROZ KHAN S/O OIL SAFI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT: 4TH CROSS LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA,
SHIVAMOGGA TOWN,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SM
