Smt Karemma v. The State of Karnataka

Order, 2009 assembly means a congregation of more than 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 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 ingredients are present as contemplated under Section 141 of IPC.

¶9Be 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, 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 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 only according to 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."

¶10On 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, 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

¶11Accordingly, 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.

¶3Therefore, in the light of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court supra, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings pending in C.C.No.2912/2019 before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada district, stands quashed."

In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for reasons aforementioned, following: ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1500/2017 pending before the JMFC VII Court, Mangaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioner."

In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER

(iii) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(iv) Proceedings in C.C.No.347/2021 pending before the Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC, Devadurga, stand quashed, qua the petitioner.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17625 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. KAREMMA, W/O GOPAL KRISHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DEVADURGA CONSTITUENCY, RAICHUR DISTRICT. R/AT VTC : CHINTLAKUNTA, PO: MOSARKAL, DEVADURGA TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584 126. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEVADURGA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, DEVADURGA TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU BENCH – 560 001. 2. SRI. SIDDANNA, S/O SABANNA, by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka AGE: 47 YEARS, B. GANEKAL VILLAGE, DEVADURGA TALUK, RAICHUR DISTICT – 584 136. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SURYA MUKUNDRAJ L., ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, AT DEVADURGA IN CC.NO.347/2021, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 341, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. 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. Aravind H., appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Surya Mukundraj L., 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 prayer: "i) Quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC at Devadurga in C.C. No.347/2021 for the offence U/s 143, 341, 594, 506 R/w 149 of I.P.C., in so far as petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice. ii) Pass such other order or direction deemed fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the costs." 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.8919/2026 disposed on 15.07.2026, wherein it has held as follows: "Heard the learned counsel Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for the respondent have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "Wherefore, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be please to quash the entire proceedings in C.C No.1500/2017 on the file of the JMFC VII Court, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Section U/s 143, 147, 148, 504, 353, 323, 324, 332, 506 R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code of Ullal Police Station, which is produced at Annexure-A, in the interests of justice." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.6763/2020 disposed on 11.03.2022, wherein it has held as follows: " Heard the learned counsel Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for the respondent have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "Wherefore, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be please to quash the entire proceedings in C.C No.1500/2017 on the file of the JMFC VII Court, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Section U/s 143, 147, 148, 504, 353, 323, 324, 332, 506 R/w 149 of Indian Penal Code of Ullal Police Station, which is produced at Annexure-A, in the interests of justice." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.6763/2020 disposed on 11.03.2022, wherein it has held as follows: "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2912/2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 151 read wi