- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9444 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ATAULLA JOKATTE S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3/191/2, ZAHARABAD HOUSE, M.P. ROAD, JOKATTE, 62 THOKUR VILLAGE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 030. 2. NAWAZ ULLAL S/O. LATE ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT MASTER COMPOUND, MASTIKATTE ULLAL, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 017. 3. ABDUL JALLEL. K @ JALEEL KRISHNAPURA S/O. LATE CHEYYABBA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 1/13/1, ASHRAF COTTAGE, YUSUF NAGAR, KANNUR, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 007, NOW RESIDING AT: FLAT NO. 201, KAMALDEEPA APARTMENT, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 OLD KENT ROAD, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE, D. K. DISTRICT-575 001. 4. MOHAMMED SHARIEF @ SHARIEF PANDESHWARA S/O. HAMEED MOIDEEN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO. 19-5-321/1, H.M.S. COMPOUND, NEAR RAILWAY TRACK, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001. 5. MUZAIR AHMED @ MUZAIR KUDROLI S/O. LATE HAMZA, R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-4-1210, C.P.C. COMPOUND, KUDROLI, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 003. 6. AFFAN ABDUL REHAMAN S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT S. A. MANZIL, SUNKADAKATTE, KADABA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 221. 7. NOUFAL KUDROLI S/O. HAMZA, R/AT HOUSE NO. 8-4-1210, C.P.C. COMPOUND, KUDROLI, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 003. 8. ABDUL MAJEED S/O. MOOSABBA, R/AT: NEAR KBS, 62 THOKUR VILLAGE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 030. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LETHIF B.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE NORTH P.S., D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI. SATISH KATTANAVAR POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 729, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT MANGALORE NORTH P.S., BUNDAR, MANGALORE CITY, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.989/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, 120B, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.2A AND 2B OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT, MANGALORE NORTH P.S., ON THE FILE OF THE II-JMFC, MANGALORE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN TH ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos.79 to 86 in the charge sheet filed by respondent/Police in connection with Crime No.132/2019, of Mangaluru North Police Station in C.C.No.989/2020, before JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, D.K. are before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated against them. 2. FIR is registered against 200-300 unknown persons on a su-moto complaint lodged by the police constable, Mangaluru North Police Station, Mangaluru. It is alleged that on 19.12.2019, at about 02:30 p.m., about 200 to 300 people were protesting against implementation of CAA and for the said purpose, they formed an unlawful assembly and assembled near a petrol bunk situated at Mission Street Cross and pelted stones etc., at the police and vehicles and caused injuries to the complainant etc. 3. FIR was registered for offences Punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 188, 341, 427, 353, 332, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 2(A), 2(B) of the Karnataka - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. While filing charge sheet, Section 188 of IPC was deleted. Charge sheet was filed against 87 accused. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that this Court has allowed Crl.P.No.12779/2023 filed by similar accused and quashed the proceedings against them. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that these petitioners gave speech and instigated other accused persons and they have been identified by the witnesses and therefore, there is a prima-facie case against them. 6. Admittedly 200 to 300 people had gathered at the place of incident and it is not made clear as to why the charge sheet was filed only against 87 accused leaving others. This Court while disposing of Crl.P.No.12779/2023 (supra) has taken into consideration the order passed in Crl.P.No.3916/2018, wherein it is observed that, mere presence of a person in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was common object and he was actuated by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 of IPC. 7. Para No.13 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS V/s. STATE OF U.P. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205 relied in the above case, reads as follows:- "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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 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." 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not named in the FIR. It is the case of prosecution itself that about 200 to 300 unknown persons had assembled at the place and they pelted stones at the police and vehicles and caused damage to the vehicles etc. This Court in Crl.P.No.12779/2023 disposed on 20.12.2023 has held that, the intention to commit murder and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 with that intention the accused threw soda bottles etc., at the police was not substantiated by any material produced along with the charge sheet. 9. Even in the present case this Court finds that there is no material placed along with the charge sheet to establish that the petitioners have attempted to commit murder or threw stones etc., at police with that intention. In the FIR, descriptions of the accused who threw stones etc., at the police are not stated. Vague allegations are made that even the petitioners were present in the mob and they have abetted other accused persons. Hence, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. 10. For the above reasons, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings as against petitioners in C.C.No.989/2020 pending on the file of the Court - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13583 CRL.P No. 9444 of 2022 of II-Mangaluru North Mangaluru is quashed, arising out of Crime No.132/2019 Mangaluru North Police Station and the consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. iii) I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT: BHK