- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16319 CRL.P No. 13842 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13842 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRADEEP M S/O MURGAN K AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.243/A, 10TH MAIN 40TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. GANGAIAH K A AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJAJINAGAR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 21.09.2019 REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.132/2019 AND CHARGE SHEET DATED 10.01.2020 AND IN CC.NO.3487/2020 REGISTERED WITH RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 353, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC, BEFORE THE HON'BLE XXXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16319 CRL.P No. 13842 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.16 who is facing Trial for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 353, 504 r/w Section 149 of IPC is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 21.9.2019, the complainant along with towing vehicle people while patrolling the area had towed a vehicle of accused No.1 and subsequently, accused No.1 stopped the towing of his vehicle and argument took place between the accused No.1 and the complainant due to which people gathered and few people gathered attacked the towing vehicle and also made allegation against the Police for extracting the money from the two wheelers. and subsequently the Assistant Sub-Inspector registered the complaint against the accused No.1. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was one of among 200 persons who had gathered at the time of the alleged incident and he had deferred the complainant from discharging his official duties. Except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific overt acts detailing how and in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16319 CRL.P No. 13842 of 2024 what manner, accused No.16, deferred the complainant from discharging his official duties. 5. 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: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16319 CRL.P No. 13842 of 2024 “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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16319 CRL.P No. 13842 of 2024 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.” 6. In the present case, though the assembly was unlawful, however, the charge sheet material does not establish that the Petitioner had a common object and was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141 of IPC. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements to constitute the commission of aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner herein, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3487/2020 pending on the file of the XXXII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru insofar it relates to petitioner-accused No.16 , hereby stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 30