- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103412 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. JAYAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BUS CONDUCTOR IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581359, BEARING BADGE NO.1712. 2. LAXMANA S/O. HANUMANTHA MALLIGERI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT – 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 1554. 3. BANDENAVAJ S/O. ABDULSAB MULLA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO.1233. 4. MUTTAPPA S/O. BALAPPA KELLUR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT – 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 543. 5. HANUMANTH S/O. HULUGEPPA RABLLERA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 1712, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.15 11:09:26 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 6. ANAND S/O. REVANASIDDAIAH HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 543. 7. GAJANAN S/O. NARAYANA AMBIGA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 1271. 8. HUCCHAPPA S/O. RAMANNA ADIN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 1192. 9. BASAYYA S/O. SHANTHAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, TECHNICIAN IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 943. 10. LAKSHMAN C. S/O. L. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, SKILLED WORKER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 954. 11. ANAND K.C. S/O. CHIDANANDA KATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TECHNICIAN IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 986. 12. C.P.VAGMORE S/O. POMU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 BUS CONDUCTOR IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 1848. 13. RAJESH S/O. NARAYANA PATHANKAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SKILLED WORKER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359. 14. GADIGEPPA S/O. GADEGEPPA BEVINAGIDAD AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 1602. 15. BALASINGH S/O. BHAVAN SINGH RAJPUT AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BUS DRIVER IN KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPUR, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT- 581359, BEARING BADGE NO. 1439. 16. SMT. RAMA W/O. GAJANAN AMBIGA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. MOGATA VILLAGE, ANKOLA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581344. 17. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. ANAND HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. HEGGERI VILLAGE, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580011. 18. SMT. RENUKA W/O. MALLAPPA BASARAKOD AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, KSRTC DEPOT, YELLAPURA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581359. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO K AND SMT. V.VIDYA, ADVOCATES) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELLAPURA POLICE STATION, YELLAPURA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 359. 2. SRI. RAVI ANCHIGAVI DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC YELLAPURA DIVISION, YELLAPURA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581359. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1; SRI. S.S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. VENA HEGDE, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIIONERS IN C.C. NO. 80/2022 (CRIME NO. 64/2021) PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELLAPURA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 341, 353, 504, 506 AND 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.04.2021, at the KSRTC bus station in Yellapura town, the petitioners/accused, with common intention, abused the driver and conductor of the bus in filthy language, garlanded the driver, attempted to garland the conductor, who was on official duty, threatened them with dire consequences, and restrained them from discharging their official duties. The petitioners have filed this petition to challenge the proceedings. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for respondent No.1/State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet material reveals that, apart from omnibus and general allegations, there are no specific allegations against each of the accused, detailing how they obstructed the driver and conductor of the KSRTC bus from discharging their duties, abused them in filthy language, or threatened them with dire consequences. 5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3916/2018, disposed off on 17.02.2020 at paragraphs-8 and 9 has held as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 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 examined 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 circumstance, 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 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 CHARANSINGH (Quoted supra) at paragraphNo.13, it has been observed as under: 13. Coming to the others who were armed with double barrel 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 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 have 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 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 upto certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:468 CRL.P No. 103412 of 2022 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 instant case, although the assembly was unlawful, the charge sheet does not establish that the accused had a common object, nor does it show that they were actuated by that common object, which is one of those set out in Section 141 of the IPC. In the absence of such an essential element to constitute an offence against each of the accused, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.80/2022 (arising out of Yellapura PS Crime No.64/2021) on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Yellapura, Uttaraka Kannada District, insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 18, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR /CT:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69