Bombay High Court
Tukaram @ Manoj Parab And Anr vs State, Thr. Officer In Charge, Crime ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
2025:BHC-GOA:432-DB
2025:BHC-GOA:432-DB
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
Jose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2021
1. Tukaram @ Majoj Parab
Son of Bharat Parab
Aged 35 years, Indian National,
Resident of House No. 411,
Kel Waddo, Pirna, Bardez,
North Goa,
Goa. Pin: 403513.
2. Rohan Kalangutkar
Son of Prabhakar Kalangutkar,
Aged 35 years, Indian National,
Resident of House No. 239,
Bhatiwado, Nerul,
... Petitioners
Bardez-Goa. 403 114.
Versus
1. State,
through Officer-in-charge
Crime Branch Police Station,
Ribandar, Goa.
2. Public Prosecutor,
Bombay High Court at Goa,
Panaji-Goa. ...Respondents
Mr C.A. Ferreira, Senior Advocate with Mr Nehal
Govekar, Mr Sujay Kamulkar and Mr Rakesh Naik,
Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondents.
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE: 12th March, 2025
Page 1 of 8
12th March 2025
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2025 22:11:19 :::
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request
of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioners, by instituting this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek
quashing of FIR No. 2/2021 registered at the Valpoi Police Station
(now transferred to Crime Branch Police Station) and Charge Sheet
No. 96/2023 dated 25.08.2023 insofar as it concerns the
Petitioners.
4. Mr C.A. Ferreira, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners,
submitted that if the allegations made in the FIR/complaint are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not,
even prima facie, constitute any offence or make out any case
against the Petitioners. He pointed out that there was no allegation
about the Petitioners being involved in the alleged incident on the
morning of 06.01.2021. The only allegation is that the Petitioners
were a part of the crowd of about 300 persons that assembled at
about 16:00 hours and marched towards the Police Station of
Valpoi. He submitted that there are no allegations of the Petitioners
or, for that matter, this crowd of 300 persons wielding any deadly
weapons or weapons. There are no allegations about any unlawful
object. There are no allegations about any actual destruction of
Government property. Therefore, applying the test laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and
12th March 2025
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.1, the impugned FIR and the
impugned Charge Sheet may be quashed.
5. Mr Pravin Faldessai learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
submitted that the allegations in the complaint must be considered
in their entirety. He submitted that only limited offences were
levelled against the Petitioners, as was clear from the Charge Sheet.
He submitted that the Petitioners were a part of the mob that
marched on the Valpoi Police Station, threatening to destroy
Government property and injure the Government staff inside the
Police Station. Given the limited scope of interference in such
matters, he submitted that this petition should be dismissed.
6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
7. In January 2021, a proposal to establish an IIT in Valpoi was
made. A section of the villagers was apparently opposed to this
proposal. So, on 6 January 2021, at about 11.30 a.m., they gathered
at the proposed site to agitate and lodge their protest against the
proposal. There are allegations of the mob turning violent, leading
to police intervention and arrests of some of the agitators.
8. In the afternoon, i.e. at about 16.00 hours, it was alleged that
a mob of about 300 villagers, including the two petitioners herein,
marched to the police station. There, the crowd raised slogans
against the police, and their "leaders appealed them to maintain
blockade while threatening to storm inside the premises of PS
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
12th March 2025
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
Valpoi and cause destruction of govt. property and further injury
to the govt. staff inside the premises."
9. By adverting to the aforementioned allegations, Shri Sagar
Ekoskar, Police Inspector at the Valpoi Police Station, lodged an
FIR or complaint on 6 January 2021. Following investigations, the
impugned chargesheet was filed inter alia against the petitioners
herein, alleging the commission of offences under Sections 143,
145, 147, 341, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 of the IPC.
10. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have instituted this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
to quash the impugned FIR and Chargesheet. In Bhajan Lal
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that where the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused, then such
FIR/complaint must be quashed. Therefore, we must focus on the
FIR/Complaint and determine if it passes the test in Bhajan Lal
[supra].
11. The FIR/Complaint has two distinct parts. The first part
concerns the incident that occurred around 11:30 a.m. on
06.01.2021. Admittedly, the Petitioners were not present in the
morning session when that incident occurred. There is no such
allegation in the FIR/Complaint, and this was not even contended
during the arguments.
12. The second part refers to what allegedly happened at around
16:00 hours on 06.01.2021. The Petitioners are alleged to have been
12th March 2025
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
present at that time. Therefore, the extract from the
FIR/complaint, upon which the learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioners and the learned APP relied in support of their respective
versions, is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:
"Therefore, the police party and civil
administration staff returned to the PS Valpoi. It was
reported around 16:00 hrs that protestors in even
larger numbers, numbering around 300 persons
gathered at Hathwada Junction and began marching
towards PS Valpoi shouting slogans and threatening
violence against the police staff. Shortly thereafter, the
protestors led by Janardhan Bhandari, Dashrath
Mandrekar, Sankalp Amonkar, Sachin Bhagat, Rama
Kankonkar, (Ms.) Roshan Dessai, Vishwesh Parab,
Manoj Parab, Rohan Kalangutkar, Shubham
Megnath Shivolkar, Shankar Devli, Nikita Naik,
Unnati Melekar, Pooja Melekar, Sadyo Melekar,
Shashikant Sanvordekar, Shashikala Savardekar,
Dashrath Sangodkar and others reached at PS Valpoi
and completely blocked the main road restricting the
vehicular traffic and started giving slogans against
the police specially against PI Valpoi P S. Thereupon,
the SDM and senior officers, on microphone
repeatedly requested the protesting crowd to remove
the blockade. However, the crowd got even more
agitated and their leaders appealed them to maintain
blockade while threatening to storm inside the
premises of PS Valpoi and cause destruction of govt.
property and further injury to the govt. staff inside the
premises."
13. The Charge Sheet alleges that the Petitioners have committed
offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 341, 186, 353, 120-B r/w
Section 149 of the IPC based only on the above allegations. Learned
APP pointed out that several other offences for which others have
12th March 2025
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
been charged have not been invoked insofar as the Petitioners are
concerned.
14. On evaluating the above-transcribed portion, we find it
difficult to accept that any of the offences the Petitioners are
charged with have been made out even by accepting the allegations
at their face value. There are no clear allegations that the Petitioners
had assembled in the afternoon session or marched towards the
Police Station with any unlawful object or with an objective to
commit any crime. There are no allegations about the wielding of
deadly weapons. There are no allegations of any actual destruction
of Government property or injuries to the Government staff inside
the Police Station premises. The only allegation is that the
Petitioners and others marched towards the Police Station shouting
slogans. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, we are satisfied that no offence is made
under the Sections for which the Petitioners have been charged.
15. Mr Ferreira also relied upon Sitaram and Ors. vs.
Emperor2, where the learned Judicial Commissioner has held that
the law does not declare the mere assemblage of men, however
large, illegal. To be illegal, the assemblage must be inspired by an
illegal object as specified in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code.
This decision also refers to Queen Empress vs. Peelimuthu
Tewan3, where it is held that a large concourse of men armed with
sticks and billhooks could not be presumed that their object was
necessarily illegal. However, the fact that they were in a large crowd
AIR 1925 Nag 260
(1901) 24 Mad 124
12th March 2025
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
and were armed may raise some suspicion, but such suspicion
could not be proof upon which the accused could be convicted.
16. Even if we exclude the precedent in the case of Peelimuthu
Tewan (supra), the statement of law that a mere assemblage of
persons, however large, may not be an offence unless some illegal
object inspires it can be said to be attracted to the facts of the
present case. In Madan Singh v. State of Bihar [2004] 4 SCC 622,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere presence in an unlawful
assembly does not render any persons automatically liable unless
there is evidence to suggest that they were motivated by common
objects set out in Section 141 Cr.P.C. Thus, the presence and sharing
of a common unlawful object is a must to invoke Section 149 IPC.
Mere presence is not enough. Going by the allegations in the
FIR/complaint, we are satisfied that no offences have been made,
and any further continuance of the petitioner's prosecution would
amount to an abuse of the Judicial process.
17. Prosecutions must not be launched to stifle agitations that are
part of the democratic process so long as people do not take the law
into their own hands or indulge in violence or damage to public or
private property. Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees the
right to assemble peaceably and without arms. While reasonable
restrictions could always be imposed on exercising this
fundamental right, such right must not be diluted or stifled based
upon vague charges bereft of the essential ingredients to constitute
offences under the penal laws. The lines between the constitutional
right to protest and the unleashing of penal prosecutions cannot be
allowed to be blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a
sad day for democracy. [see Mazdoor Kisan Shakti
12th March 2025
27-WPCR-30-2021 (J)
Sanghatan v. UOI 2018(11) SCR 586 and Himmat Lal v.
Commissioner AIR 1973 SC 87]
18. For the above reasons, we allow this petition, quash and set
aside the impugned FIR No.2/2021 registered at Valpoi Police
Station (now transferred to the Crime Branch) and Charge Sheet
No.96/2023 dated 25.08.2023 filed before the J.M.F.C., Valpoi and
since registered as Case No. IPC/33/2023 insofar as the Petitioners
are concerned.
19. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any cost
order.
20. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
M. S. SONAK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
12th March 2025
