[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mahammed Ismail Ansari vs State By on 26 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
CRL.P No. 11899 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11899 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMED ISMAIL ANSARI
S/O D IDINABBA
AGE 31 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.203,
SAMEER RESIDENCY,
BADRIYA 2ND CROSS, KANDAK,
MANGALURU - 575001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TAHIR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA 1. STATE BY MANGALORE NORTH PS
N REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH
COURT OF HIGH COURT COMPLEX
KARNATAKA OPP VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. SATISHA KATANNANAVARA
POLICE OFFICER
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PC-729, NORTH POLICE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
CRL.P No. 11899 of 2025
HC-KAR
STATION, BUNDER,
MANGALURU - 575001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER., ADDL SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) BY PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN IMPLICATION IN SC NO.200/2023 ARISING
OUT OF CRIME NO.132/2019 AT ANNEXURE-D REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MANGALORE NORTH PS FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 427, 353, 332,
307, 120(b), 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 2(A), 2(B) OF
THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF
PROPERTY ACT, 1981 NOW PENDING ON THE FILES OF
HONBLE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE,
MANGALURU WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS
ACCUSED NO.33 B. SET ASIDE THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
15.03.2020 AT ANNEXURE-C PENDING AS SC NO. 200/2023
ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 132/2019 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 MANGALORE NORTH PS FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341,504, 506, 427, 353, 332,
307,120(b), 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 2(A), 2(B) OF
THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF
PROPERTY ACT, 1981 NOW PENDING ON THE FILES OF
HONBLE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE,
MANGALURU WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRYED AS
ACCUSED NO.33.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
CRL.P No. 11899 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Tahir, appearing for the
petitioner, Smt. Asma Kouser, the learned Addl. SPP appearing
for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the
following prayers:
"A. To Set aside the entire proceedings in
implication in SC No.200/2023 arising out of
crime No.132/2019 at Annexure-D registered
by the Respondent no.1 Mangalore North PS for
the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 504,
506, 427, 353, 332, 307, 120(b), 109 R/W 149
of IPC and Section 2(A), 2(B) of the Karnataka
Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property
Act, 1981 now pending on the files of Hon'ble
VI Addl.District and Session Judge, Mangaluru,
wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused
no.33;
b. To Set aside the charge sheet dated
15.03.2020 at Annexure-c pending as SC no.
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
HC-KAR
200/2023 arising out of crime No. 132/2019
registered by the Respondent No.1 Mangalore
North PS for the offences P/U/S 143, 147, 148,
341,504, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307,120(b), 109
r/w 149 of IPC and Section 2(A), 2(B) of the
Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss
of Property Act, 1981 now pending on the files
of Honble VI Addl. District and Session Judge,
Mangaluru wherein the Petitioner is arryed as
accused no.33."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment
rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.9444/2022 disposed on
01.04.2025, wherein it has held as follows:
"Petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos.79 to 86 in
the charge sheet filed by respondent/Police in connection
with Crime No.132/2019, of Mangaluru North Police
Station in C.C.No.989/2020, before JMFC (II Court),
Mangaluru, D.K. are before this Court seeking to quash
the entire proceedings initiated against them.
2. FIR is registered against 200-300 unknown
persons on a su-moto complaint lodged by the police
constable, Mangaluru North Police Station, Mangaluru. It
is alleged that on 19.12.2019, at about 02:30 p.m.,
about 200 to 300 people were protesting against
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
HC-KAR
implementation of CAA and for the said purpose, they
formed an unlawful assembly and assembled near a
petrol bunk situated at Mission Street Cross and pelted
stones etc., at the police and vehicles and caused
injuries to the complainant etc.
3. FIR was registered for offences Punishable
under Section 143, 147, 148, 188, 341, 427, 353, 332,
307 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 2(A), 2(B) of
the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of
Property Act, 1981. While filing charge sheet, Section
188 of IPC was deleted. Charge sheet was filed against
87 accused.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended
that this Court has allowed Crl.P.No.12779/2023 filed by
similar accused and quashed the proceedings against
them.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
would contend that these petitioners gave speech and
instigated other accused persons and they have been
identified by the witnesses and therefore, there is a
prima-facie case against them.
6. Admittedly 200 to 300 people had gathered
at the place of incident and it is not made clear as to why
the charge sheet was filed only against 87 accused
leaving others. This Court while disposing of
Crl.P.No.12779/2023 (supra) has taken into
consideration the order passed in Crl.P.No.3916/2018,
wherein it is observed that, mere presence of a person in
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
HC-KAR
an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable
unless there was common object and he was actuated by
that common object and that object is one of those set
out in Section 141 of IPC.
7. Para No.13 of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHARAN SINGH AND
OTHERS V/s. STATE OF U.P. reported in (2004) 4
SCC 205 relied in the above case, reads as follows:-
"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
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
HC-KAR
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 a 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."
8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not named
in the FIR. It is the case of prosecution itself that about
200 to 300 unknown persons had assembled at the
place and they pelted stones at the police and vehicles
and caused damage to the vehicles etc. This Court in
Crl.P.No.12779/2023 disposed on 20.12.2023 has held
that, the intention to commit murder and with that
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
HC-KAR
intention the accused threw soda bottles etc., at the
police was not substantiated by any material produced
along with the charge sheet.
9. Even in the present case this Court finds
that there is no material placed along with the charge
sheet to establish that the petitioners have attempted to
commit murder or threw stones etc., at police with that
intention. In the FIR, descriptions of the accused who
threw stones etc., at the police are not stated. Vague
allegations are made that even the petitioners were
present in the mob and they have abetted other
accused persons. Hence, the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process
of law.
10. For the above reasons, the proceedings
against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and
accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings as against
petitioners in C.C.No.989/2020 pending on
the file of the Court
of II-Mangaluru North Mangaluru is
quashed, arising out of Crime No.132/2019
Mangaluru North Police Station and the
consequent proceedings are hereby
quashed.
NC: 2026:KHC:17124
HC-KAR
iii) I.A.No.1/2022 is disposed of."
4. In the light of the order passed by this Court
(supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.200/2023 pending
before the VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Mangaluru, stand quashed, qua the
petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
AN/-
