Karnataka High Court
Abdul Hafeez vs The State on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1869 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. ABDUL HAFEEZ,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O M.A.MASOOD,
R/AT JAISAL MANZIL,
VIDYANAGAR, KOOLUR,
PANJIMOGARU,
MANGALORE, D.K. - 575 013.
2. FAYAZ @ MOHAMMED FAYAZ,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O ADAM BAVA @ BAVAKA,
R/O BHANDARY FEVILION APARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.402,
KAVOOR BDRIYA JUMA MASJID ROAD,
Digitally BEHIND KAVOOR FISH MARKET,
signed by KAVOOR,
KAVYA R MANGALORE - D.K. - 575 015.
Location:
High Court 3. KALANDAR BASHA @ BASHA @
of Karnataka KALANDAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O IBRAHIM BAVA CHAYYABBA,
R/ NEAR A1 FAROOQ JUMA MASJID,
SHANTHINAGAR,
KAVOOR,
MANGALORE, D.K. - 575 015.
4. NASIRUDDIN @ NASIR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/AT NEAR KULA MASJID,
KUNJATHBAIL, KAVOOR,
MANGALORE - D.K. - 575 017.
5. ABDUL HISHYAM,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O K. NAZEER,
R/AT NEW ARABI KHAN,
PINTO VALEYVIEW,
BEHIND KIOCLHOUSING COMPLEX, KAVOOR,
MANGALORE, D.K. - 575 017.
6. AFEEZ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O LATE HAMZA,
R/AT 8-4-1210,
CPC COMPOUND, KUDROLI,
MANGALORE, D.K. - 575 003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE,
BY SHO MANGALORE NORTH
POLICE STATION,
REPRSETNED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.200/2023 (CR.NO.132
OF 2019, MANGALORE NORTH P.S) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K.,
MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341,
504, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, 120(B), 109 R/W 149 OF IPC
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
CRL.P No. 1869 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND SEC.2(A), 2(B) OF PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND
LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this Petition, Petitioners seek the following relief:
"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC
No.200/2023 (Crime No.132/2019) Mangalore
North Police Station), pending on the file of VI
Additional District & Sessions Judge,
D.K.Mangalore, for offences punishable u/s 143,
147, 148, 341,505, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307,
(12)(B), 109 r/w 149 of IPC and 2(A), 2(B) of
Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act,
in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned HCGP for Respondents and perused the material
on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that the Respondent instituted the impugned proceedings
which are now pending in S.C.No.200/2023 before the VI
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru, for the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 341,505,
506, 427, 353, 332, 307, (12)(B), 109 r/w 149 of IPC and
2(A), 2(B) of Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property
Act, 1981. In the said proceedings, Petitioners are
arraigned as Accused Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 29, and 60.
4. This Court on the last date of hearing, i.e., on
30.08.2024, recorded submission made by the learned
counsel Petitioners that the issue in the present lis is
covered by a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in
CRL.P.NO.4902/2023 between ATHAULLA JOKATTE
AND OTHERS VS. THE STAT EOF KARNATAKA &
ANOTHER, disposed of on 19.06.2023 wherein the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205 was followed
by this Court. In response, the submission made by the
learned Additional SPP was also recorded by this Court as
hereunder:
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
"Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
submits that the issue in the lis is covered by
the judgment of the Apex Court relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
List this matter after two weeks."
5. In addition thereto, in ATHAULLA JOKATTE
AND OTHERS VS. THE STAT EOF KARNATAKA &
ANOTHER, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as
under:
"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 Smt. K.P.
Yashoda, learned HighCourt 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
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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 CRL.P
No. 4902 of 2023 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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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 unlawful assembly may
have community of object up to a
certain point beyond which they may
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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
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
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
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."
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the material placed on record will indicate that the
Petitioners cannot be held to be guilty of the alleged
offences and also in the light of the principles laid down in
CHARAN SINGH supra. Hence, I am of the view that the
continuation of impugned proceedings qua the Accused
Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 29, and 60 would amount to abuse the
process of law warranting interference of this Court in the
present Petition.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21487
HC-KAR
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) The petition is hereby allowed.
2) The proceedings in S.C.No.200/2023 before the VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru, for the offences p/u/s 143, 147,
148, 341,505, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, (12)(B), 109
r/w 149 of IPC and 2(A), 2(B) of Prevention of
Destruction & Loss of Property Act, 1981 Petitioners
are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BSV
