Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Hifaz vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44942
CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13541 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED HIFAZ S/O. ABDUL HAMEED,
AGED: 25 YEARS,
R/AT: NO 8-13-954/1, KARBALA ROAD,
OPP TO MAJIA MASJID, KUDROLI,
MANGALORE, D K DISTRICT- 575 003.
2. MOHAMMED JALEEL SAFWAN
S/O. AHMED BAVA,
AGED 30 YARS, R/AT N 10-325,
HAJI ABBAS COMPUND
KASAI GALLIR OAD, BUNDER,
MANGALORE, DK DSIT - 575 001.
3. ABUBABAKAR
S/O. SHAIK MOHIDDIN IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
R/AT NO 11-8-77/3,
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by VISHAL
STEEL CENTRE COMPOUND,
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:37
+0530
BABI ALABI ROAD, HAAPANKATTE,
BUNDER, MANGALORE,
D K DISTRICT - 575 001.
4. MOHAMMED NOUSHIM S/O. ABUSALI,
AGED 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO 8-14-1275,
MONAKA COMPUND,
KUDROLOI, MANGALORE,
D K DISTRICT - 575 003.
5. G MOHAMMED SHAREEF @ KUNTA SHAREEF
S/O. LATE B ABDULLA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44942
CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/AT 2-166, GOLIMAR HOUSE,
GANADA BETTU, KANNUR,
MANGALORE, D K DISTR - 575 007.
6. MOHAMMED RIMAZ S/O. AHAMED BAVA,
AGED 28 YEARS, RA/T 10-5-186,
VAIBAVA COMPOUND,
BIBI HALABI ROAD, BUNDFER,
D K DIST - 575 001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION,
D K DIST, REP BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDNG,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI. RAMESH BHAT K.,
AGED 54 YEARS
CHIEF MANGER, SBI, MAIN BRANCH,
AGED 52 YERS, R/AT: PORT ROAD,
MANGALORE CITY - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
IN C.C.NO.1131/2020 (CR.NO.247/2019) OF MANGALURU
SOUTH POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 427, 336, 120-B, 109 R/W
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SEC.2(A) OF KPDLP ACT ON THE
FILE OF II JMFC COURT, MANGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE - A IN THE ABOVE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44942
CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer.
"Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.1131/2020 (Crime No.247/2019) of Mangaluru South Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 336, 120B, 109 read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 2(a) of KPDLP Act on the file of II JMFC Court, Mangalore, which is produced at Annexure - A, in the above case, in the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qua the co-accused, this Court has passed the following order:
"The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Criminal Case No.1131 of 2020 pending on the file of the II Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Mangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 336, 120B, 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 2(A) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.
2. Heard Sri. Lethif B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri. M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6763 of 2020 disposed of on 11-3-2022. This Court following the earlier judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:
"2. The issue in the petition is akin to what is decided in Crl.P.No.3916/2018 disposed on -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44942 CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44942 CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44942 CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44942 CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44942 CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:44942 CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 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."
4. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.1131 of 2020 before the II Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Mangaluru, stands quashed."
3. Learned HCGP would accept the said position.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44942 CRL.P No. 13541 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.1131 of 2020 before the II Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Mangaluru, qua the petitioners stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3