Mere Presence in Mob Insufficient for Unlawful Assembly Charge Without Proof of 'Common Object': Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Under S.143 IPC

Vague Allegations Insufficient to Prosecute for Unlawful Assembly, Says Karnataka HC

Court quashes proceedings against eight individuals accused in 2019 Mangaluru CAA protest case, citing lack of evidence for a 'common object' as required under the IPC.

BENGALURU – In a significant ruling on the principles of constructive liability, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against eight individuals, holding that mere presence in an unlawful assembly is not enough to sustain a criminal charge. The court emphasized that the prosecution must provide sufficient material to demonstrate a "common object" shared by the accused.

The order was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz while allowing a petition filed by Athaulla Jokatte and seven others, who were accused in a case related to the 2019 anti-CAA protests in Mangaluru.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR (Crime No. 245/2019) registered by the Mangaluru South Police Station on December 19, 2019. It was alleged that a mob of over 300 people formed an unlawful assembly, violating prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., to protest the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The complaint stated that the mob pelted stones at shops and vehicles, causing damage to the complainant's car amounting to Rs. 70,000.

Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against 29 individuals, including the eight petitioners. They were charged under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 427 (mischief causing damage), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 109 (abetment), read with Section 149 (vicarious liability) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property (KPDLP) Act.

Arguments in Court

The counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Lethif B , argued that the charge sheet lacked the necessary ingredients to prosecute them. The central argument was that to establish an offence of unlawful assembly under Section 143 IPC, the prosecution must first prove the existence of a "common object" as defined in Section 141 IPC. He contended that mere presence in a crowd, without proof of a shared unlawful objective, cannot render a person criminally liable.

The State, represented by the Additional State Public Prosecutor, defended the charge sheet, maintaining that the petitioners, as leaders of various organizations, had conspired and instigated the violence.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedent

Justice Mohammad Nawaz heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Charan Singh and Others v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) . The High Court quoted the Apex Court's observation:

"Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149."

Applying this principle, the High Court identified several critical flaws in the prosecution's case: - The initial FIR was registered against more than 300 unknown persons . - The charge sheet singled out only 29 individuals without providing a satisfactory reason for not arraigning others from the large mob. - The petitioners were strangers to the original complainant, and the complaint lacked any description of the perpetrators. - The allegations against the petitioners were deemed "vague" and the material on record "insufficient to proceed."

The Court also noted that a co-ordinate bench had quashed proceedings in an identical case (Crl.P.No.6763/2020) based on the same legal reasoning.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the High Court allowed the petition.

"The entire proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.1058/2020 pending on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru is quashed," the order stated.

This judgment reinforces a crucial safeguard in criminal law, preventing individuals from being implicated in mob-related offences based on flimsy or non-specific evidence. It underscores the high burden on the prosecution to prove not just presence, but active participation driven by a shared unlawful objective.