- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31634 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8517 OF 2026 BETWEEN: VISHESH CHANDER GURU, SON OF BRIJESH CHANDER GURU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.2918/E, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUN KUMAR K, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUNDARA RAMAN M V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, S.J PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MR. CHANDREGOWDA H B, ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR, S.J PARK POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31634 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2026 BENGALURU- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2020 IN C.C.NO.5618/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL CMM BENGALURU TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – accused No.4 stands at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 21.03.2020, passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.5618/2020 and quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.5618/2020. 2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar K., learned senior counsel along with Sri Sundara Raman M.V., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor – 1 for respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31634 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2026 3. An order of prohibition issued in the year 2019, was the subject matter before the division bench in W.P.No.52731/2019 and connected matters disposed on 13.02.2020. The division bench recognizing the right to protest had obliterated the order passed by the then Director General. Several of the accused took advantage in the teeth of the quashment of the very judgment itself. The crime so registered against every other accused stood quashed and following the judgment of the division bench, by an order of the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.23579/2021, disposed on 03.06.2026. The order reads as follows: 8. At outset, a perusal of decision in Sowmya R. Reddy's case (supra) would reveal that prohibitory order passed by Commissioner of Police under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. on 18.12.2019 was under challenge in writ petition. Order of prohibition was apparently issued to curtail protest against Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and included assembly in which petitioners participated peacefully. Quashing of notification of prohibition would remove basis for assembly being termed unlawful. 9. Petitioners are charged with commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 153, 290 read with Section 149 of IPC. Section 143 of IPC provides punishment for 'unlawful assembly'. In view of quashing of order of prohibition under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., petitioners' participation in assembly cannot be termed as unlawful. Likewise, offence under Section 147 of IPC provides punishment for rioting main ingredient of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31634 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2026 which would be use of force or violence by an 'unlawful assembly'. Perusal of contents of Annexure-B, complaint or Annexure-C, charge sheet do not indicate any ingredients or basis to substantiate either use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly. 10. Likewise, main ingredient of offence under Section 153 of IPC involves provocation to any person to indulge in rioting, which are absent in complaint while Section 290 of IPC provides punishment for offence of causing public nuisance. 11. Section 268 of IPC defines 'Public Nuisance' as person who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission resulting in common injury, danger or annoyance to public or to people in general who dwell or occupy property in vicinity, which allegations are also absent in instant case. In absence of any basis for offences, continuation of proceedings against petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. 12. In view of above, Writ Petition is allowed, proceedings in C.C.no.7537/2020 pending on file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore against petitioners stand quashed.” Who remained in the fray, is the present petitioner - accused No.4. Therefore, petitioner - accused No.4 is also entitled to the same benefit, that is granted to the other accused, by the co-ordinate bench. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31634 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2026 4. For the very reasons rendered in the afore-quoted order, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. b. The impugned order dated 21.03.2020, passed by the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.5618/2020, the proceedings in C.C.No.5618/2020, the charge sheet bearing No.10/2020 dated 25.02.2020 and FIR bearing No.101/2019 dated 19.12.2019, all stand quashed. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 stand disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2