Calcutta High Court quashes FIR over SLST protesters’ slogans and posters at Bengal CM meeting, finding no offence disclosed

The petitioners, who had grievances concerning School Service Commission recruitment, protested at a public meeting of the Chief Minister at Asansol Stadium Ground on 28 June 2022.

The FIR alleged that four women stood up, shouted that they had been selected in SLST 2016 but had not been appointed, displayed posters seeking a meeting with the Chief Minister, and, when asked by women police officers to remain calm, obstructed the officers through “aggressive body language and gestures,” insulted and provoked the public, and disrupted the meeting.

Hirapur Police Station Case No. 244 of 2022 was registered under Sections 353, 186, 504, 506, 120B and 34 IPC; the investigation was pending. The petitioners sought relief under Article 226, including removal of their names from the case and quashing of the proceedings.

Whether the FIR allegations, accepted at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 353, 186, 504, 506, 120B and 34 IPC.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed under Article 226 to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Under Article 226 and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, an FIR may be quashed where, on its face, it does not disclose an offence or where continuation would constitute an abuse of process; the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal guide that inquiry.

The court must accept the allegations as true for this limited purpose and assess whether they disclose the ingredients of an offence, without evaluating their reliability or the likelihood of conviction.

Section 353 IPC requires assault or criminal force, or conduct amounting to assault, directed at a public servant in connection with the discharge of duty; Section 186 requires voluntary obstruction of a public servant; Section 504 requires intentional insult and the requisite provocation; and Section 506 requires a threat intended to cause alarm or compel or prevent conduct.

Sections 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect expression and peaceful assembly, subject to reasonable restrictions.

The court found that shouting the petitioners’ grievance and displaying posters did not, without more, amount to assault or criminal force under Section 353; the general allegation of “aggressive body language and gestures” did not identify any gesture or preparation that would cause an officer to apprehend imminent criminal force.

Although the FIR used the word “obstructed,” it did not explain how the described conduct prevented the officers from performing their public functions, as required by Section 186.

It alleged neither an intentional insult carrying the requisite likelihood of provoking a breach of peace under Section 504 nor a threat within Section 506.

The asserted shared grievance did not establish an agreement to commit an offence for Section 120B.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, the court concluded that the FIR disclosed no prima facie offence and that the proceedings were vexatious in the circumstances.

It quashed Hirapur Police Station Case No. 244 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings, including G.R. Case No. 2171 of 2022 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman at Asansol. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.