- Case
- TUKARAM @ MANOJ PARAB AND ANR v. STATE, THR. OFFICER IN CHARGE, CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, RIBANDAR AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 12-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code.
Facts: The petitioners were part of a crowd protesting a proposed IIT in Valpoi. An FIR was lodged against them alleging offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 341, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 of the IPC, for unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, obstructing a public servant, assault, and criminal conspiracy. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and chargesheet, arguing that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute any offence.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, seeking to quash FIR No. 2/2021 and Charge Sheet No. 96/2023.
Issue: Do the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet, even if accepted at face value, disclose offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 341, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 of the IPC against the petitioners? Does mere presence in a protesting crowd, without specific allegations of unlawful object or violence, constitute an offence?
Holding: No, the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose offences under the charged sections against the petitioners. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the petitioners.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the principle that a mere assemblage of persons, however large, does not constitute an offence unless it is inspired by an illegal object as specified in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. Citing Sitaram and Ors. vs. Emperor and Queen Empress vs. Peelimuthu Tewan, the Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove an unlawful object. The Court also referred to Madan Singh v. State of Bihar, stating that mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not automatically render a person liable unless there is evidence of a common unlawful object. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not establish that the petitioners assembled with any unlawful object or committed any violent acts. The Court also observed that prosecutions should not be launched to stifle legitimate agitations, which are part of the democratic process, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
