IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 6311 OF 2018 CRIME NO.1039/2010 OF Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.73 OF

2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR PETITIONER:

SHENAJI AGED 50 YEARS S/O SIVANANDAN, PADANNAYIL VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN V.VINAY D.FEROZE RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.1039/2010 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

SRI.RENJITH.T.R, SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

========================

Crl.M.C. No. 6311 of 2018 ========================

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.73/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paravoor, Kollam. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 188, 283, read with 149 IPC.

2. Prosecution case is that on 04.09.2010 at about 04:00 PM, workers of the Darmavedi obstructed National High Way 47, and it is alleged that about 400 people assembled in this agitation. On the basis of this allegation, the crime was registered. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the First Information statement and only five persons names were mentioned in it. It is also submitted that no information was supplied by the witnesses to identify other persons. According to the petitioner, without any fresh material, after recording further statements, the name of the petitioner was added as an accused. It is the definite case of the petitioner that his name is included in the array of accused without any material. According to the petitioner, no overt act is alleged against the petitioner in the statement. Annexure 1 is the final report. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted no offence is, made out.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court perused the final report. As per the final report, it is alleged that about 400 people who are workers of Darmavedi formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to obstruct National Highway 47, proceeded along the National Highway raising slogans and, obstructed the trafÏc on the National Highway. Whether the same amounts to an offence is the point to be decided in this case. Admittedly, it was a protest by about 400 people. There is no allegation that any unlawful activities are committed by the members of the assembly.

4. In Prakash Karat v. State of Kerala

2022 (5) KLT 907, this Court considered a similar question. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

13. A reading of the section indicates that every assembly of five or more persons by itself will not become an unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons will become unlawful only when they have a common object and the said object falls within the categories mentioned as first to fifth in section 141 IPC. When the common object of the assembly does not fall within any of the five categories specified in section 141, even if the number of the assembly is more than five, the act alleged will not attract the offence of unlawful assembly. Thus the essence of the offence of unlawful assembly lies in the consensus of purpose of more than five persons to commit an act specified in section 141 of IPC.

14. It is apposite to notice that of the five categories in the provision, three of them have criminal force as a necessary ingredient. Force is defined in section 349 IPC, while criminal force is defined in section 350 IPC. The intentional use of force for com