Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. AJITH RAI

S/O BALAKRISHNA RAI

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

HOSAMANE AJJIKALLU,

OLAMOGRU VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 210.

2. SRI. DINESH P

S/O LOKAPPA GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

1-90A, PANJIGA HOUSE,

SHANTHIGODU, PUTTUR TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 202.

3. SRI. NARASHIMA SHETTY

S/O NARAYANA SHETTY,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

1-130C, LAKKAPPA KODI HOUSE,

MANI POST, BANTWALA,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 253.

4. SRI. PUNEETH MADATHAR

S/O M. NEELAPPA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

4-140B, MADATHAR HOUSE,

KAMBALABETTU POST,

BANTWALA TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 243.

5. SRI. DAYANANDA SHETTY

S/O SESAPPA SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

1-139, KAMBALA BETTU POST,

VITTAL MUNDOOR VILLAGE,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 243.

6. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR RAI

S/O VITTAL RAI,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

NO.34, 8TH CROSS SOMESHWARA STREET,

MG SCHOOL, BILEKAHALLI,

BANNERGATTA ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560 076.

7. SRI. NITHESH P

S/O JAGANNATHA,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

NELPPAL HOUSE, PADNUR,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 220.

8. SRI. NAGESH.T.S

S/O SHEENAPPA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

3-73/1 EKA HOUSE,

CHIKKAMUDNOOR POST,

PUTTUR TALUK, D.K - 574 203.

9. SRI. BHAMY JAGADISH SHENOY

S/O LATE BHAMI VASUDEVA SHENOY

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

2-309, VASUDEVA NILAYA

KRISHNA NAGARA KEMMAYI POST,

CHICKMUDNOOR,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 203.

10. SRI. SHINAPPA KULAL

S/O DOMBAYA MOOLYA

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

3-122 SEDIYAPU, BADIYADKA HOUSE

BANNUR POST, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 203.

11. SRI. RAJESH BANNUR

S/O GOPAL

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

2-173, ANUGRAHA

MAIN ROAD PUTTUR,

PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201.

12. B. SANJEEV GOWDA

S/O VENKAPPA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

2-6, URUVALU HOUSE,

BELTHANGADI TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 326.

13. SMT. GOWRI.H

D/O SANKAPPA GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

NO. 1-179, AYODYA NAGARA

BANNUR KATTE, PUTTUR TALUK

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 203.

14. SMT. VIDYA R.GOWRI

D/O Y. RAGHAV BHAT

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

1-611, VIJAYA SUPARI

BUILDING KASABA, PUTTUR TALUK

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201.

15. SMT. DEEKSHA PAI

W/O DINESH PAI

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

4-138 PAI CATERERS

PASS ROAD, PARLADKA

PUTTUR TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201.

16. SSRI. ATHISH NAIK

S/O P.MALIYAPPA NAIK

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

1-80 SARVESH FARM HOUSE

PUTTUR TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 210.

17. SMT. LEELAVATHI

W/O ANNU NAIK

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

2-264, KRISHNA NAGARA HOUSE,

CHICKMUDNOOR, PUTTUR TALUK

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 203.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PUTTUR TOWN P.S,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suyog Herele E, Arun Shyam
For the Respondents: Anoop Kumar

Criminal proceedings for unlawful assembly cannot be sustained where the complaint fails to demonstrate the essential statutory elements of a common object or specific ingredients required by law, rendering the prosecution unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 189(2), 126(2), 270, 190 - Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Unlawful assembly - Ingredients of Section 141 of IPC (equivalent to current provisions) not satisfied - Mere assembly of persons without common objective set out in statute does not constitute unlawful assembly - Held, in absence of material indicating ingredients of unlawful assembly, proceedings are liable to be quashed relying on coordinate bench decision. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in proceedings initiated under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for alleged offences regarding unlawful assembly. The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court, arguing that the ingredients required to constitute an unlawful assembly under the relevant legal provisions were not met in the complaint or charge sheet.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the issue was squarely covered by a previous coordinate bench decision wherein it was held that if an assembly lacks the specific ingredients stipulated by law and a common object is not proved, proceedings cannot be maintained.

Issues: Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the alleged offence of unlawful assembly are sustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere presence in a gathering does not render a person liable for prosecution for unlawful assembly unless there is a community of object and the assembly satisfies the statutory requirements; in the absence of such evidence, the criminal proceedings are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1100/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED RPL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M PUTTUR D.K INCLUDING THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 19.08.2025 FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET FILED BY RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.29/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 189(2), 126(2), 270 R/W 190 OF BNS 2023 (PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1, 2, 3 AND 4).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1100/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 270 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

2. Heard Sri. Arun Shyam, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Suyog Herele E., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Anoop Kumar, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 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 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 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 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 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 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 or license is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24924

Criminal proceedings for unlawful assembly cannot be sustained where the complaint fails to demonstrate the essential statutory elements of a common object or specific ingredients required by law, rendering the prosecution unsustainable.

Cases Referred (1)