- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2615 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. K N HEMANTH S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI KOTANAYAKANAHALLI, VTC, TIPTUR RURAL, TUMKUR-572217. 2. KIRTHI GANESH NG, S/O. GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/ATNO.48, 1ST CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR, SHESHADIPURAM, BANGALORE- 560020. 3. ALI REHAMATHPAILWAN, S/O. SADIQPAILWAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT 530, 1ST CROSS, VENKABHAVI COLONY, DAVANAGERE- 577001. 4. PREM KUMAR D S/O. DEVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.13/1, TH PARALLEL ROAD, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPETE, BANGALORE- 560018. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 5. AHMED RAZA, S/O. GOUSE PEER, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT 510, 1ST CROSS, VENKABHAVI COLONY, DAVANAGERE- 577001. 6. LAKSHYA RAJ V, S/O. VENKATANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/ATNO.133, OPPOSITE OXFORD ENGLISH SCHOOL, BHOMA REDDY COLONY, NEW THIPPESANDRA, BANGALORE- 560075. 7. MOHAMMED KALEEM S/O. NISAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT 2363, 4TH CROSS, BEHIND RAMA TENT, KUSHAL NAGAR, K.G. HALLI, BANGALORE- 560045. 8. SRIKANTH CK S/O. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT 189, UNDEDASARAHALLI, BEHIND PAIS COMPOUND, CHIKKAMANGALURU- 577101. 9. MOHAMMED MAAZ, S/O. KALEEMBAIG, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT 119, 1ST CROSS, KOTE AREA, OLD TOWN, BHADARAVATHI, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT- 577301. 10. AMAN ULLA KHAN, S/O. SADATHULLA KHAN, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/ATSHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE PUMP HOUSE, JANATHA COLONY, TUMKUR-572102. 11. SAYEDSUHAIL S A, S/O. SYED ZAILABADINA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. JAGALUBETURU ROAD, 4TH CROSS, ROAD, DAVANAGERE- 577001. 12. K V SUPRITH, S/O. K MVENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.140, KANCHAMARANAHALLI, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573130. 13. AMRUTH KUMAR T, S/O. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO. 13-114/4, AK COLONY, MUDDANNA LAYOUT, HENNUR CROSS, BANGALORE- 5602043. 14. SAMPATH K K, S/O. KENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT KITTHAGALALE VILLAGE, HOSOKOTEHOBALI, ALURUTALUK, HASSAN-573129. 15. ROOPESH Y @ MANU S/O YOGESHA Y T, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT PETE COLONY, YESLURU, SAKALESHPURATALUK, HASSAN- 573201. 16. SHOBITH S, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 S/O. SHIVAKUMAR M, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT 2ND CROSS, VISHWESHWARAYYA ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN 573202. 17. DILEEP M N STO. NINGARAJO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT MAGENAHALLI, SINGAPURA, HASSAN-573218. 18. SHANSHANK, S/O. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/T NO. PETE COLONY, YASALURU, HASSAN-573137. 19. KIRAN T, S/O. TIMMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO. NADAGOWDAGOLLAHALLI, DODDAGUBBI, BANGALORE-562149. 20. MADHU M, S/O. MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO. 116/C, HENNUR, AK COLONY, BANGALORE- 5602043. 21. M RAKESH, S/O. MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.08,7TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, JP NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE- 560078. 22. MOHAMMED FAHAD, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 S/O. ABID AHMED, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT 4TH CROSS, DR. A M C MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH MYSORE SAW MILL, K.G. HALLI, BANGALORE- 560045. 23. AKASH RL,. S/O. R.LAKSHMIKANTHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14/2481, SRI GURURAMADHANA, NAGANNANAPALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR 572106. 24. MAHAMEDJAINUDDIN SHARIEFF S/O. NADEEM AHMED SHARIEFF, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT 4TH CROSS, PH COLONY, SS TEMPLE ROAD, TUMKUR- 572101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REP BY THE S.P.P, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. MURALIDHARA N R S/O RAMASUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PA EDUCATION MINISTER KR EXT TIPTUR TOWN TUMAKUR-572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.8668/2022 OF TIPTUR TOWN P.S., ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,447,332,353,149 OF IPC, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Sri. K.N. Udayashankar, learned counsel files power for respondent No.2, and the same is placed on record. 3. The petitioners who are prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 447, 436, 353, 332, 149 of IPC are before this Court seeking relief. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 5. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners by forming an unlawful assembly and without permission from the Competent Authority assembled in front of the house of the Education Minister protesting against the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 changes in syllubus and criminally trespassed into the house of the Education Minister. 6. The issue involved in this petition was examined by the coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3916/2018, wherein, at para nos. 8 and 9 it has held as follows: "8. On perusal of records, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 have assembled and were protesting against interference and dress code imposed by AIIMS exam and also have not obtained any permission from the concerned Authorities. But as could be seen from the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order, 2009 assembly means a congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention of conducting meeting or protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access, license is required only when more than 250 persons are there. Admittedly in the instant case, the contents of the complaint and other materials indicates that only 50 persons have assembled. In that light, a license said to have been is not necessary as per the Order of 2009. The only question which remains for consideration of this Court is that whether the assembly of petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 had constituted an unlawful assembly as per Section 141 of IPC? In order to attract the said provision, the assembly must satisfy five ingredients which have been stated therein but on close reading of the contents of the complaint, charge sheet material and other materials, it indicates that none of the ingredients are present as contemplated under Section 141 of IPC. 9. Be that as it may. If 50 persons have assembled at a particular place, then under such circumstances, it cannot be held as an unlawful assembly. Mere presence of a person 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 of IPC. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH (Quoted supra) at paragraph No.13, it has been observed as under: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 “13. Coming to the others who were armed with double-barrelled guns and country-made pistols, the question is regarding applicability of Section 149 IPC. Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. 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. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141. The word “object” means the purpose or design and, in order to make it “common”, it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression “in prosecution of common object” as appearing in Section 149 has to be strictly construed as equivalent to “in order to attain the common object”. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be a community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an unlawful assembly may have community of object up to a certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the same assembly.” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14803 CRL.P No. 2615 of 2025 7. In the present case, though the assembly was unlawful, however, the charge sheet material does not establish that the Petitioners had a common object and were actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 of IPC. 8. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners herein, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8668/2022 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Tiptur is hereby stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR