SRI FAROOQ MUGULI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3957 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
SRI FAROOQ MUGULI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O AHAMMED BARY
R/AT MUGULI HOUSE
KAROPADY VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST 574279
…PETITIONER
(BY Ms HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OFKARNATAKA
BY VITLA POLICE STATION
MANGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.1320/2020 (REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VITAL
POLICE STATION, BANTWALA IN CRNO.190/2018, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 353, 504 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC) ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWALA, DAKSHINA
KANNADA AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
(a) Quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.1320/2020 (registered by the
respondent no.1 Vital Police Station, Bantwala in
Cr No.190/2018, for the offence p/u/s 143, 147,
148, 323, 353, 504 r/w sec. 149 of IPC) on the
file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwala,
Dakshina Kannada against the petitioner .
2. On 20.05.2018, a complaint came to be lodged by a
Police Constable, pursuant to which an FIR in Crime
No.190/2018 was registered by Vitla Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 353, 504 and 149 of the IPC. Upon completion
of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed on
01.01.2019, additionally invoking Section 323 of the
IPC.
3. The allegations in the complaint are that, on
19.05.2018, the then Chief Minister had established
his majority in the Legislative Assembly and, in the
aftermath thereof, prohibitory orders under Section
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
144 of the Cr.P.C. had been imposed in Vitla. At that
point in time, the petitioner, along with several
others, came to the spot on motorcycles, raising
slogans in support of one political party.
Simultaneously, another group also assembled at the
spot, raising slogans in support of an opposing
political party. The police informed both groups about
the prohibitory orders in force and requested them to
disperse. However, they allegedly refused to do so
and, thereafter, members of the two groups
assaulted each other using lathis and other articles.
It is further alleged that, upon noticing the arrival of
senior police officers, the persons assembled at the
spot dispersed and ran away. Upon completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed for
the aforesaid offences. It is challenging the said
proceedings that the petitioner is before this Court
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that mere unlawful assembly will not result in
conviction for other offences and in this regard she
relies upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Mohammed Noufal and others Vs.
The State of Karnataka [Crl.P.No.6763 of 2020
dated 11.03.2022], in which in turn relied on a
decision in Crl.P.No.3916/2018 disposed on
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
17.02.2020 which in turn relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Charan Singh and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2004) 4 SCC
205]. She relies on paras 5 to 10 of the said
judgment in Crl.P.No.3916/2018 extracted in
Crl.P.No.6763/2020, which are reproduced hereunder
for easy reference.
“5. It is the submission of the learned
counsel for petitioners that though there is no
substantial material as 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
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
that as per the Licensing and Controlling of
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 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
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
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 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
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
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
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 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
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
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
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
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to
48 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.”
5. Learned counsel further relies upon paragraph 13 of
the judgment in Charan Singh's case , wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the foundation for
the application of Section 149 of the IPC is the
common object of the assembly and not merely the
presence of an individual therein. It is submitted
that, in the absence of material establishing such
common object, the petitioner's prosecution with the
aid of Section 149 of the IPC cannot be sustained.
6. It is further submitted that, even assuming that the
petitioner was present as a member of the assembly,
there is no material to indicate that he shared any
common object with the other persons assembled at
the spot to commit the alleged offences. Mere
participation in or presence at the gathering cannot
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
be treated as sufficient to attract the provisions of
Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC. On these
grounds, learned counsel seeks quashing of the
proceedings.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the question
of common object and the individual role played by
the petitioner would have to be examined during trial
and cannot be conclusively determined in
proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is
submitted that prohibitory orders under Section 144
of the Cr.P.C. were admittedly in force at the
relevant point in time. Despite the said orders, more
than 100 persons had gathered at the spot, raised
slogans and refused to disperse despite being
informed by the police about the prohibitory orders.
8. Learned HCGP further submits that the persons
assembled at the spot had not merely violated the
prohibitory orders but had also resisted the
intervention of the police authorities and thereafter
indulged in acts of violence. The assembly, its
conduct and the subsequent acts attributed to its
members would, prima facie, disclose the existence
of a common object. It is therefore submitted that
the question as to whether the petitioner shared the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
common object of the assembly and whether the
other offences were committed in prosecution of such
common object is a matter for trial.
9. Heard Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for
Sri Ashok Kumar Shetty K., learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
Perused papers.
10. Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:
“144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of
nuisance or apprehended danger.
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate,
a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive
Magistrate specially empowered by the State
Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for
proceeding under this section and immediate prevention
or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by
a written order stating the material facts of the case and
served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any
person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain
order with respect to certain property in his possession
or under his management, if such Magistrate considers
that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to
prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person
lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or
safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a
riot, or an affray.
(2) An order under this Section may, in cases of
emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not
admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the
person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex
parte.
(3) An order under this Section may be directed to a
particular individual or to persons residing in a particular
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
place or area, or to the public generally when
frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this Section shall remain in force for
more than two months from the making thereof
:Provided that, if the State Government considers it
necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life,
health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it
may, by notification, direct that an order made by a
Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for
such further period not exceeding six months from the
date on which the order made by the Magistrate would
have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in
the said notification.
(5)
Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on
the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter
any order made under this section by himself or any
Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-
office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion
or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or
alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-
section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or sub-
section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State
Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the
applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or
it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause
against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State
Government, as the case may be, rejects the application
wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the
reasons for so doing.”
11. Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. confers power upon the
competent Executive Magistrate to issue orders in
urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger,
directing persons to abstain from specified acts or to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
take certain measures in respect of property under
their possession or management, where such
directions are considered necessary to prevent
obstruction, annoyance, injury, danger to human life,
health or safety, disturbance of public tranquillity,
riot or affray. Such orders may be directed to
particular individuals, persons residing within a
specified area or the public generally when
frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
12. In the present case, the existence of an order under
Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. at the relevant place and
point in time is not in dispute. The prosecution case,
as placed before this Court, is that more than 100
persons had assembled at the spot notwithstanding
the prohibitory orders in force. The police personnel
informed the persons assembled of the existence of
the prohibitory orders and called upon them to
disperse. However, they allegedly refused to comply
and, thereafter, incidents of violence took place
between the two groups. Thus, the allegations are
not confined to the mere presence of the petitioner
at the spot in violation of the prohibitory orders. The
prosecution attributes further acts of resistance and
violence to the persons who had assembled there.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
13. Section 149 of the IPC reads as under:
“149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of
offence committed in prosecution of common
object.—
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly, or such as the members of that assembly
knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that
object, every person who, at the time of the committing
of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is
guilty of that offence. Under Section 149 if an offence is
committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of a common object of that assembly or such
as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object. Every person
who at the time of committing that offence is a member
of that same assembly guilty of that offence.”
14. Insofar as the offences contemplated under Section
141 of IPC are concerned. The said Section 141 of
IPC is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“ 141. Unlawful assembly.—
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an
“unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the
persons composing that assembly is—
(First)— To overawe by criminal force, or show of
criminal force, 1the Central or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public
servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public
servant; or
(Second)— To resist the execution of any law, or of any
legal process; or
(Third)— To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or
other offence; or
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
(Fourth)— By means of criminal force, or show of
criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain
possession of any property, or to deprive any person of
the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or
other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or
enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(Fifth)— By means of criminal force, or show of criminal
force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled
to do.
Explanation.— An assembly which was not unlawful
when it assembled, may subsequently become an
unlawful assembly.”
15. The chargesheet is not for offences which are under
Section 141 alone but those under 323, 353 and 504
of IPC which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
“323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
353. Assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharge of his duty.—
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person
being a public servant in the execution of his duty as
such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter
that person from discharging his duty as such public
servant, or in consequence of anything done or
attempted to be done by such person in the lawful
discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.—
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.”
16. A conjoint reading of Sections 141 and 149 of the
IPC would indicate that the liability contemplated
under Section 149 is founded upon the existence of a
common object falling within the scope of Section
141. It is not necessary that every member of the
assembly should individually commit an overt act.
However, mere presence at the place of occurrence
or participation in a gathering would not, by itself, be
sufficient to attract the provision. The prosecution
must establish that the person concerned was a
member of an assembly having a common object of
the nature contemplated under Section 141 of the
IPC.
17. The aforesaid principle has been explained by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Charan Singh's case (supra),
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
particularly in paragraph 13 thereof, wherein it has
been held that the foundation of constructive liability
under Section 149 is the common object and not
common intention. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
further observed that mere presence in an unlawful
assembly would not render a person liable unless
such person was actuated by the common object of
the assembly, and that such object must fall within
one of the categories enumerated under Section 141
of the IPC.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also clarified that it is
not necessary that the common object should have
been formed pursuant to an express agreement or
mutual consultation amongst all the members. It
may be formed at any stage by all or a few members
of the assembly, with the remaining members
subsequently joining and adopting such object. Once
formed, the common object may also undergo
modification or alteration during the course of
events. What is required is that the object should be
common to the persons composing the assembly and
that the members should be aware of and concur in
such object.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
19. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the aforesaid
proposition of law and contends that there is no
material to establish any common object shared by
the petitioner and the other persons assembled at
the spot. However, the facts of the present case, as
reflected in the complaint and the charge-sheet
material, require consideration.
20. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in Mohammed Noufal's case , the
Co-ordinate Bench had examined the allegations and
the charge-sheet material and found that the
assembly in question consisted of only about 50
persons and that the circumstances did not disclose
the existence of any of the common objects
contemplated under Section 141 of the IPC. In that
factual background, it was held that the mere
assembly of persons and their presence at the spot
would not be sufficient to attract Sections 141, 143
and 149 of the IPC.
21. The factual circumstances in the present case are
materially different. Here, the prosecution alleges
that a large number of persons had assembled at the
spot despite the prohibitory orders then in force.
More importantly, when the police personnel
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
informed them of the prohibitory orders and
requested them to disperse, they allegedly refused to
comply. The situation thereafter escalated, with the
two groups engaging in acts of violence. The charge-
sheet material is also stated to indicate that the
persons assembled at the spot attempted to resist or
ward off the police authorities in the course of their
attempt to enforce the prohibitory orders.
22. It is necessary to distinguish between the mere
violation of a prohibitory order under Section 144 of
the Cr.P.C. and the constitution of an unlawful
assembly under Section 141 of the IPC. The former,
by itself, would not automatically establish the latter.
However, where the allegations and material
collected during investigation indicate that five or
more persons, having assembled despite the
prohibitory order, thereafter resisted the
enforcement of the order by the police authorities
and indulged in acts of violence, the question
whether their conduct discloses a common object
falling within the scope of Section 141 of the IPC
would necessarily arise for consideration.
23. In the present case, the allegations, taken together,
prima facie indicate that the assembly did not merely
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
congregate in breach of the prohibitory order but
that its members, or members of the group to which
the petitioner is alleged to belong, refused to comply
with the directions of the police and thereafter
indulged in acts of violence. Such conduct, if
established, may attract the second category of
Section 141 of the IPC, namely, resistance to the
execution of law or legal process, and may also
require examination in the context of the other
categories enumerated therein. The nature of the
assembly, the object with which the persons had
gathered and the conduct of its members are matters
which have to be examined together and not in
isolation.
24. The submission that no common object existed
merely because the petitioner did not individually
commit any overt act cannot be accepted as a
ground for quashing the proceedings. As held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Charan Singh's case , proof
of a distinct overt act on the part of every member of
the unlawful assembly is not an indispensable
requirement for attracting Section 149 of the IPC.
What is relevant is whether the petitioner was a
member of the assembly, whether he was aware of
the common object and whether the offence alleged
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
was committed in prosecution of such object or was
one which the members of the assembly knew to be
likely to be committed in prosecution thereof.
25. The charge-sheet in the present case also invokes
Sections 323, 353 and 504 of the IPC. The
allegations relating to the assault between the two
groups, the alleged resistance to the police personnel
in the discharge of their duties and the conduct
attributed to the persons assembled at the spot are
matters which require appreciation of the statements
of the witnesses and other evidence collected during
investigation. Whether the petitioner was a
participant in such conduct, whether he shared the
common object of the assembly and whether the
ingredients of the respective offences are established
are questions which cannot be conclusively
determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
26. This Court is, at this stage, not required to determine
whether the petitioner is ultimately guilty of the
offences alleged. The consideration is confined to
examining whether the allegations in the complaint
and the material collected during investigation
disclose a prima facie basis for permitting the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
prosecution to proceed. The Court cannot undertake
a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or conduct
a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the
allegations and the charge-sheet material cannot be
said to be devoid of any material warranting
prosecution of the petitioner. The applicability of
Section 149 of the IPC, the existence of a common
object and the petitioner's alleged membership of the
assembly are matters which require examination
during trial. The decision relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, having been rendered in
the factual circumstances obtaining therein, would
not automatically govern the present case.
28. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to
accept the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the proceedings are liable to be
quashed. The petitioner has not made out a case for
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. to interdict the criminal proceedings.
29. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60750
CRL.P No. 3957 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010185952025
ORDER
i) Reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate all
defences during the course of trial, the Criminal
petition is dismissed.
ii) It is made clear that the observations made in
this order are only for the purpose of deciding
the present petition and shall not influence the
Trial Court while considering the matter on its
merits.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21