- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 602 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 628 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 631 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 641 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 645 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 670 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 679 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 684 OF 2025 IN CRL.P No. 602/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOSIN KHAN @ MOSIN S/O SHABBIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 2. HIDAYATH @ PAPA S/O JAMEER PHASHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. SYED KALEEM S/O SYED RASOOL AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT: SHNANESHWARA TEMPLE, NEAR 8TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 4. SYED SUBHAN S/O SYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT: NOOR A MASIDI BEHIND RAGI GUDDA SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 5. DADAPHEER @ SYED DADAPHEER S/O RAFIQ @ SYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASIDI BEHIND RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. DADAPHEER @ KHALANDHAR S/O INAYATH KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 2ND CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 7. NAYAZ S/O KHAYUM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, MASIDI BEHIND RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 8. SYED MALIK @ RIHAN @ MALLE S/O JAFAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT: 13TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 9. SHADMAN S/O GHAFAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BACK SIDE, 10TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 10. IRFAN BEG S/O AMJAD BEG AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 3RD CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. LATHA W/O. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT: NO.4TH CROSS, RAGIGUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.790/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. IN CRL.P NO. 628/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOSIN @ MOSIN KHAN S/O SABBIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 2. SUFI KHAN @ SUFI SALEEM KHAN @ GUJARI SALIM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: BEHIND ASHIKA SCHOOL, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. HIDAYATH @ PAPA S/O ZAMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204. 4. SYED SUBHAN S/O SYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT: 8TH CROSS, MASIDI BACK SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 5. DADAPEER @ KALANDAR S/O INAYATH KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 2ND CROSS RIGHT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. IRFAN S/O PAKATHI SUBHAN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 7. NAYAZ S/O KHAIYUM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, MASEEDI BACK SIDE, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 8. SYED MALLIK @ RIHAN @ MELE S/O JAFAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 13TH CROSS LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 9. SHADMAN S/O GAFAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT: NUR - A MASEEDI BACK SIDE 10TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 10. FIROZ KHAN S/O OIL SAFI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT: NO.6TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGIGUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 805/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III, COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. IN CRL.P NO. 631/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SUFI KHAN @ SUFI S/O SALEEM KHAN @ GUJARI SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: ASHOK SCHOOL BEHIND, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 2. SYED SUBHAN S/O SYED RAFIQ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BEHIND, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. DADA PEER @ SYED DADAPEER S/O SYED RAFIQ, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BEHIND, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 4. HIDAYATH @ PAPA S/O JAMEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 8/3RD CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 5. SYED MALLIK @ RIHAN @ MELE S/O JAFAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 13TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. MOSIN KHAN S/O SHABBIR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. (NAME AND ADRESS OF THE PETITIONERS ARE AS PER CHARGE SHEET.) ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SHRI. LOKESH REDDY S/O RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: 8/1 CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 804/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. IN CRL.P NO. 641/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOSIN KHAN S/O SHABBIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 2. SOOFI KHAN @ SOOFI S/O SALEEM KHAN @ GUJURI SALEEM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: BEHIND ASHOKA SCHOOL RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. SAYED SUBHAN S/O SAYED RAFIQE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BACKSIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 4. DADAPEER @ SAYED DADAPEER S/O SAYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BACK SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 5. HIDAYATH @ PAPA S/O JAMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. NAYAZ S/O KHAYYUM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS MASIDI BEHIND RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 7. SAYED MALLIK @ RIHAN @MALE S/O JAFAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 13TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 8. DADAPEER @ SHUNDU S/O AKRAM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS RIGHT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 9. SHADMAN S/O GAFFAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASIDI BACK SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 10. KHALANDAR @ JAGGU S/O FAYAAZ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT: BANGARAPPA BADAWANE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SHRI. VINAY S P S/O.S PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: NO.9TH CROSS, MASIDI BACK SIDE, RAGIGUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.789/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 427, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. IN CRL.P NO. 645/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOSIN KHAN S/O ANVAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: TIPPU NAGARA 7TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 2. SOOFI KHAN @ SOOFI S/O SALEEM KHAN @ GUJURI SALEEM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: BEHIND ASHOKA SCHOOL - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. DADAPEER @ SAYED DADAPEER S/O SAYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BACK SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 4. SAYED SUBHAN S/O SAYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BACKSIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 5. SAYED MALLIK @ RIHAN @MALE S/O JAFAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 13TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. DADAPEER @ KHALANDAR S/O TOPI INAYATH KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 2ND CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 7. MOSIN KHAN S/O SHABBI KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SHRI. RAVI S/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: RAGIGUDDA, NEAR POLICE CHOWKI, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 774/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 427, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. IN CRL.P NO. 670/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOSIN KHAN S/O SHABBIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS RIGHT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 2. HIDAYATH @ PAPA S/O JAMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 8/3 CROSS LEFT SIDE, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. SUFIKHAN @ SUFI S/O SALEEM KHAN @ GUJARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT: ASHOK SCHOOL, BEHIND RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 4. DADAPEER S/O SYED RAFIK AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR E MASJID BACKSIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 5. SYED SUBAN S/O SYED RAFIK AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR E MASJID BACKSIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. SYED KHALEEM @ KARACHI S/O SYED RASOOL AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT: 8TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 7. NAYAZ S/O KHAYUM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS MASJID BACKSIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 8. SYED MALLIK @ RIHAN @ MALE S/O JAFAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS R/AT: 13TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 9. DADAPEER @ KALANDAR S/O TOPI INAYATH KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 3RD CROSS LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 10. SHADMAN S/O GAFAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR E MASJID BACKSIDE 10TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SHRI.LAXMAN GOWDA S/O BABU GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT: NO.8TH CROSS, RAGIGUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 802/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. IN CRL.P NO. 679/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOSIN KHAN S/O SHABBIR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS RIGHT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 2. SYED KALEEM S/O SYED RASOOL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT: 8TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. SUFI KHAN S/O SALIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT: BEHIND ASHOKA SCHOOL, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 4. HIDAYATH S/O ZAMEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 8/3RD CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 5. NAYAZ S/O KHAYYUM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. SIDDIQ S/O SAIFULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 7. DASTAGIR S/O SANAULLA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 13TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 8. DADAPEER S/O SYED RAFEEQ, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 9. IRFAN S/O SUBAAN PAKATHI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 10. SYED SUBAAN S/O SYED RAFEEQ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: NOOR MASIDI BEHIND, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 11. AFTAB S/O UMER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 12. INAYATH S/O ZAMEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 8/3RD CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 13. SYED MALLIK S/O JAFFER, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 13TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 14. DADAPEER S/O INAYATH KHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 3RD CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 15. KHALANDER S/O FAYAZ, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT: BANGARAPPA BADAVANE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 16. SAMEER S/O MOHD RAFEEQ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 17. SUBHAAN S/O REHMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT: RAGI GUDDA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 18. AFSAL S/O SYED NASEER, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 19. SAMEER S/O TOPI INAYATH KHAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT: 2ND CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 20. FAIROZ KHAN S/O SHAFI OIL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. (NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONERS ARE AS PER CHARGE SHEET) ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SHRI. A N MARUTHI S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 8TH CROSS, RAGIGUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.780/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C III, COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. IN CRL.P NO. 684/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOSEEM KHAN @ MOSEEN S/O SHABBIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: 6TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 2. HIDAYAT @ PAPA S/O ZAMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS R/AT: 6TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 3. DASTHU @ DASTHGEER S/O SANAVULLA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT: NEAR BETHUL CHURCH 13TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 4. DADAPEER S/O SYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT: NOOR A MASIDI BACK SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 5. IRFAN S/O PAKATHI SUBAN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT: 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 6. SYED SHUBHAN S/O SYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT: NOOR A MASJID BEHIND, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 7. SYED KALLIM S/O SYED RASUL AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT: NEAR SHANESWAR TEMPLE, 8TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 8. SIDIQ @ SIDDUMANIK S/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 6TH CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 9. NAYAZ S/O KHAYYUM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: 4TH CROSS, MASIDI BACK SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. 10. SUFI KHAN @ SUFI S/O SALEEM KHAN @ GUJARI SALEEM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT: ASHOK SCHOOL BEHIND RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 204. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P NADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SHRI. SHISHIKUMAR S/O. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT: NO. 8TH CROSS, RAGIGUDDA SHIVAMOGGA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 773/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER In Crl.P.No.602/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: “a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.790/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143,144, 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. In Crl.P.No.628/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: “a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.805/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. In Crl.P.No.631/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: “a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.804/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 4. In Crl.P.No.641/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: “a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.789/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 427, 504 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 5. In Crl.P.No.645/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: “a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.774/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 427, 504 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 6. In Crl.P.No.670/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: “a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.802/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 7. In Crl.P.No.679/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.780/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 427, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 8. In Crl.P.No.684/2025, the petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS “a) Quash the entire Proceedings in CC No.773/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b) Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 9. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sandesh P Nadiger, appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.4721/2024, disposed on 05.06.2024, this Court has held as under: "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.50/2024, pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 332, 353 r/w. 149 of the IPC 2. The issue in the petition is akin to what is decided by this Court in Crl.P.No.6763/2020, disposed on 11.03.2022, wherein this Court has examined the issue and offences alleged against the petitioners therein. While so examining, this Court has held as follows: - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS “2. The issue in the petition is akin to what is decided in Crl.P.No.3916/2018 disposed on 17.02.2020, wherein this Court has examined the identical facts and offences alleged against the petitioners therein. While so examining, this Court has held as follows: 4. The gist of the complaint is that on 23.05.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., received a credible information that a group of people gathered on Queen’s Road shouting slogans against the Government. Immediately, he went to the spot and found that 50 young men assembled illegally and disturbed the public and vehicles without prior permission from the station. On enquiry he found that they are the members of Campus Front of India Karnataka and protesting against interference religious and personal freedoms by imposing dress code in ‘AIIMS Exam’ which is against the personal and religious rights of our Constitution. Immediately they were disbursed and a case has been registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that though there is no substantial material as against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48, the respondent have investigated the case and have filed the charge sheet against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48. It is his further submission that in order to file a charge sheet under Section 143 of IPC, the unlawful assembly must satisfy the ingredients as contemplated under Section 141 of IPC but none of the ingredients are satisfied in this case. It is his further submission that mere presence in an unlawful assembly, cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object, they were actuated by the common object and that object is one of those set out under Section 141 of IPC. It is his further submission that if the common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted either under Section 143 of IPC or under Section 149 of IPC. It is his further submission that the prosecution has to prove the overt-acts as against the persons who have been alleged as a member of unlawful assembly. In order to substantiate his said contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205. It is his further submission that as per the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order 2009, the permission is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention to conduct the meeting, protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access. The said condition specially says that no permission or license is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS intention of conducting meeting to protest. It is the specific submission that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 have given the letter dated 20.05.2017 seeking permission but no such permission is granted by the Commissioner of Police., under such circumstance, the said assembly cannot be held as an unlawful assembly and the provisions of Sections 141, 143, 147, 149, 188 of IPC are not attracted. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that as per the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) order, 2009 the congregation of more than 250 persons is required but as per Section 141 of IPC, an assembly of five or more persons is considered to be an unlawful assembly and if they have assembled with a common object, then under such circumstance, accused persons can be prosecuted for the alleged offences. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint and other materials clearly indicate that they were intending to proceed to Raj Bhavan in that light, they have obstructed the public traffic, public movement and thereby, they have violated the provisions of Section 141 of IPC and other provisions of law. It is his further submission that there are independent eye-witnesses and they have also categorically stated with regard to the overt-acts of each of the accused persons and there is ample materials to connect the accused persons to the alleged crime. On these ground, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. 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 - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 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 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: “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 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 - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 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.” 10. On close perusal of the charge sheet material, it indicates that none of the ingredients specify in Section 141 of IPC are present so as to attract the provisions of Sections 141, 143, 149, 188 of IPC. When that being the case, then under such circumstances, the proceedings initiated as against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 appears to be not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.23259/2017 pending on the file of VIII Additional CMM, Bengalulru for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC is hereby quashed.” 3. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by this Court supra, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.50/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, stand quashed." 11. In Crl.P.No.6763/2020, disposed on 11.03.2022, this Court has held as under: "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2912/2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 151 read with Section 149 of the IPC pending before the Principal Civil - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS Judge and JMFC Court, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada district. 2. The issue in the petition is akin to what is decided in Crl.P.No.3916/2018 disposed on 17.02.2020, wherein this Court has examined the identical facts and offences alleged against the petitioners therein. While so examining, this Court has held as follows: “4. The gist of the complaint is that on 23.05.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., received a credible information that a group of people gathered on Queen’s Road shouting slogans against the Government. Immediately, he went to the spot and found that 50 young men assembled illegally and disturbed the public and vehicles without prior permission from the station. On enquiry he found that they are the members of Campus Front of India Karnataka and protesting against interference religious and personal freedoms by imposing dress code in ‘AIIMS Exam’ which is against the personal and religious rights of our Constitution. Immediately they were disbursed and a case has been registered and after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that though there is no substantial material as against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48, the respondent have investigated the case and have filed the charge sheet against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48. It is his further submission that in order to file a charge sheet under Section 143 of IPC, the unlawful assembly must satisfy the ingredients as contemplated under Section 141 of IPC but none of the ingredients are satisfied in this case. It is his further submission that mere presence in an unlawful assembly, cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object, they were actuated by the common object and that object is one of those set out under Section 141 of IPC. It is his further submission that if the common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted either under Section 143 of IPC or under Section 149 of IPC. It is his further submission that the prosecution has to prove the overt-acts as against the persons who have been alleged as a member of unlawful assembly. In order to substantiate his said contention, he has relied upon the - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205. It is his further submission that as per the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order 2009, the permission is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention to conduct the meeting, protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access. The said condition specially says that no permission or license is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention of conducting meeting to protest. It is the specific submission that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 48 have given the letter dated 20.05.2017 seeking permission but no such permission is granted by the Commissioner of Police., under such circumstance, the said assembly cannot be held as an unlawful assembly and the provisions of Sections 141, 143, 147, 149, 188 of IPC are not attracted. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that as per the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) order, 2009 the congregation of more than 250 persons is required but as per Section 141 of IPC, an assembly of five or more persons is considered to be an unlawful assembly and if they have assembled with a common object, then under such circumstance, accused persons can be prosecuted for the alleged offences. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint and other materials clearly indicate that they were intending to proceed to Raj Bhavan in that light, they have obstructed the public traffic, public movement and thereby, they have violated the provisions of Section 141 of IPC and other provisions of law. It is his further submission that there are independent eye-witnesses and they have also categorically stated with regard to the overt-acts of each of the accused persons and there is ample materials to connect the accused persons to the alleged crime. On these ground, he prayed to dismiss the petition. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. 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 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 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: “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 - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS 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 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.” 10. On close perusal of the charge sheet material, it indicates that none of the ingredients specify in Section 141 of IPC are present so as to attract the provisions of Sections 141, 143, 149, 188 of IPC. When that being the case, then under such circumstances, the proceedings initiated as against petitioners/accused - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS Nos.1 to 48 appears to be not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.23259/2017 pending on the file of VIII Additional CMM, Bengalulru for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC is hereby quashed.” The aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would cover, the case at hand on all its fours. That apart, there were no witnesses that would speak about the incident alleged against the petitioners which has happened in a broad day light, apart from all the witnesses examined being police officials. 3. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings pending in C.C.No.2912/2019 before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada district, stands quashed." 12. In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER [I] Criminal Petitions are allowed. [II] In Crl.P.No.602/2025, proceedings in C.C.No.790/2024 pending before the JMFC III - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. [III] In Crl.P.No.628/2025, proceedings in C.C.No.805/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. [IV] In Crl.P.No.631/2025, proceedings in C.C. No.804/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. [V] In Crl.P.No.641/2025, proceedings in C.C.No.789/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. [VI] In Crl.P.No.645/2025, proceedings in C.C.No.774/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19941 CRL.P No. 602 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 628 of 2025 CRL.P No. 631 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS [VII] In Crl.P.No.670/2025, proceedings in C.C.No.802/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. [VIII] In Crl.P.No.679/2025, proceedings in C.C.No.780/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. [IX] In Crl.P.No.684/2025, proceedings in C.C.No.773/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners stands quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 102