Protesters must exhibit a shared unlawful objective to incur liability; mere presence in a crowd is insufficient for criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT

Date : 02-09-2025

Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.08.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, I^st Class, Patna in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.259 of 2010, by which cognizance of the offences has been taken under Sections 147 , 149, 341, 323, 332, 337, 353, 160, 427, 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other named persons.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, on 28.08.10, at approximately 12:45 pm, around 200-250 supporters of the Bihar Bandh, which had been proposed by the Youth Congress Party for 28.08.10, were brought to the Dak Bungalow crossing, where slogans were raised and the traffic at the crossing was completely blocked. Despite repeated persuasion by the police officers, the supporters leading the procession did not stopped and the entire Dak Bungalow square was blocked, leading to complete disruption of traffic. In the meantime, some ambulances carrying patients were stuck in the traffic jam. The protesters were respectfully requested to allow the ambulances to pass, but they refused and when the police officers requested them to remove the blockade in view of public inconvenience, they started creating nuisance and the vehicles passing by, including government vehicles, were hit with sticks carrying party flags, and many vehicle glasses were broken. Upon being warned to disperse, the mob turned violent and started shouting slogans against the police administration. The petitioners allegedly with common intention started pelting bricks and stones on the police force due to which many police personnels were injured. Observing the escalating violence, the senior police officer ordered that the crowd be strictly dispersed. Accordingly, several protesters were arrested, and an FIR was registered against them under Sections 143/342/353/323/337/504/160/427 IPC for unlawful assembly, obstruction in government duty, and damage to property.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature, so far as the petitioner is concerned, allegedly he is also one of the protesters and is a part of the mob. He further submitted that from the face of the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner. He submitted that the charge sheet lacked the necessary ingredients to prosecute the petitioner. He contended that mere presence in a crowd, without proof of a shared unlawful objective, cannot render a person criminally liable. He further stated that the petitioner had exercised his democratic rights through protest, without incitement and the same cannot attract criminal prosecution against him. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged on 28.08.2010 and no witnesses has been examined till date. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 574 and in case of Manchu Mohan Babu Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No.3298 of 2025). On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the entire criminal proceeding, if allowed to continue, will be abuse of process of law.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there are criminality in the action of the protesters, who became violent and broke the glass of common people and government