Sufi Khan @ Sufi v. 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, 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 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 persons, who compose 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 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."

¶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 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 this Court supra, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.50/2024 pending before JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, stand quashed."

¶4Therefore, in the light of the order passed by this Court supra, the following:

ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings pending in C.C.No.788/2024 pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, stand quashed qua the petitioners.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 697 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SUFI KHAN @ SUFI S/O SALEEN KHAN GUJURI SALEEN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND ASHOK SCHOOL, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204 2. SYED SUBHAN S/O SYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BEHIND NOOR A MASJID, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204. 3. DADAPEER @ SYED DADAPEER S/O RAFIQ @ SYED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT BEHIND NOOR A MASJID, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204. 4. DADAPEER @ KHANDAR S/O INAYATH KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 2ND CROSS, RAGI GUDDA, by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204. 5. SYED MALLIK @ RIHAN @ MELE S/O JAFAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT 13TH CROSS LEFT SIDE, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201. 6. SAIFU @BADA SAIFU S/O BAIL GADI SAMIULLA (ETHINAGADI) AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT IN FRONT OF MASJID MAIN ROAD, RAGI GUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH P. NADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. K.V. PEETER S/O. K.S. VARGIS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.8TH CROSS, RAGIGUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 788/2024 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, SHIVAMOGGA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sandesh P. Nadiger, appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Deepthi Alva, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayer: "a. Quash the entire proceedings in CC No. 788/2024 registered against the Petitioners by the Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC, 1860 on the file of JMFC III Court, Shivamogga; b. Pass any such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.4721/2024 disposed on 05.06.2024, wherein it has held as follows: "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.50/2024, pending before the JMFC III Court, Shivamogga, registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 332, 353 r/w. 149 of the IPC 2. The issue in the petition is akin to what is decided by this Court in Crl.P.No.6763/2020, disposed on 11.03.2022, wherein this Court has examined the issue and offences alleged against the petitioners therein. While so examining, 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 Camp