A protest lacking a common object under IPC Section 141 does not attract Section 143.

The petitioner sought to quash FIR Crime No. 109 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 143 and 341 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and 20 others, belonging to a political party, gathered without police permission near the Kamarajar Statue in Arcot and held a dharna concerning the judgment against Rahul Gandhi.

The State submitted that the investigation was nearly complete and a final report was about to be filed.

1. Whether the allegations and materials disclosed an unlawful assembly so as to make out an offence under Section 143 IPC.

2. Whether the FIR for offences under Sections 143 and 341 IPC should be quashed in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The Court relied on the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed where, among other grounds, the allegations and materials do not disclose an offence.

It also applied Section 141 IPC, which defines an unlawful assembly as an assembly of five or more persons whose common object falls within one or more of the specified statutory purposes; Section 143 IPC criminalises membership of an unlawful assembly.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, although the Court’s discussion of its quashing power refers to Section 482.

The Court considered whether the gathering alleged by the prosecution met the definition of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC.

It held that the materials did not show that the accused used criminal force to commit mischief or an offence, take possession of property, or interfere with another person’s rights; accordingly, it found that Section 143 IPC was not attracted.

The order does not separately analyse the elements of Section 341 IPC.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.