The Himachal Pradesh High court quashed all proceedings against an advocate who was also a member of the Shimla District Courts Bar Association and remarked “holding peaceful processions, raising slogans would not be and cannot be an offence under India’s constitution.”
Facts
The petitioner among other advocates insisted on taking their vehicles through restricted road to avoid a longer way to the court without valid permits which caused traffic jam and commotion in the area. The police SHO reached there and threatened the advocates that he could challan their cars after which the lawyers got agitated and physical blows and abuses were hurled after which the advocates sat there in protest and raised slogans. After the commotion the SHO directed the police station to register FIR against the protestors for wrongful restraint, forming unlawful assembly, rioting, indulging in criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duties, intentional insult to breach the peace, and criminal intimidation, and named the petitioner as the person present at the spot. The petitioner moved to the high court seeking quashing of FIR.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the allegations were true there was no prima-facie case against the petitioner and pleaded that the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.
Respondent’s Submissions
The learned Additional Advocate general appearing for the state argued that the petitioner cannot seek quashing of FIR relying on a similar judgment which was passed by the court in the similar instance where proceedings against a co-accused were quashed and further contended that the petitioner was involved in hurling physical blows and abuses to the police officers.
Court’s Decision
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed the high court’s jurisdiction and jurisprudence of quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings in cases non-compoundable offences, after going over multiple Supreme Court precedents.
Regarding the petitioner’s involvement the court remarked “The FIR nowhere mentions the role of the petitioner. Even if this Court presumes the petitioner present at the spot, it would still not lead to an automatic inference of her acting with a common object with those who had inflicted fist blows, hurled abuses, and threatened the SHO, and also threatened to burn the Police Station.” The court further added that there were no allegations against the petitioner participating in any of the crimes and ‘holding a protest’ and ‘raising slogans’ were not unconstitutional. The court then commented “naming and arraigning the petitioner as an accused is a gross abuse of the process of law. If proceedings are allowed to be continued, it shall amount to the miscarriage of Justice.” And added that it was an exceptional case where the court ought to use its jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC and quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Thus the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings against the petitioner.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
