Case against school-job protesters quashed after Calcutta High Court finds FIR disclosed no offence in their demonstration

The petitioners, candidates aggrieved by the School Service Commission’s recruitment process, sought to quash Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 169 of 2021.

The FIR alleged that SLST candidates assembled near Mayukh Bhawan on 5 August 2021 to demonstrate, violated COVID-19 protocols and an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C., failed to disperse when directed, obstructed public movement, and prevented officials from performing their duties.

The petitioners were among thirteen persons arrested; the case was registered under Sections 143, 341, 269, 270 and 188 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The investigation was stated to be pending, and the petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petition.

Whether the FIR, accepted at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 143, 188, 341, 269 and 270 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Whether the High Court should quash the FIR and consequential proceedings under Article 226 where the allegations did not disclose a prima facie offence.

The High Court may quash an FIR under Article 226 or its inherent jurisdiction where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence, or where proceedings are otherwise an abuse of process; the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal guide that discretion.

Under Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, courts ordinarily should not interrupt investigation of a cognizable offence, but may do so where the FIR discloses no cognizable offence or offence of any kind.

The Court applied the statutory ingredients of Sections 141 and 143 IPC (an unlawful assembly of five or more persons with a specified common object), Section 188 IPC (knowing disobedience of a duly promulgated order causing or tending to cause the specified harm), Section 341 IPC (voluntary obstruction preventing an identifiable person from proceeding), Sections 269 and 270 IPC (an act likely to spread a life-endangering disease, done negligently or malignantly, respectively), and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act (obstructing an officer or refusing to comply with a direction under the Act).

Peaceful assembly and expression are protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Court treated the allegations as true but found that the FIR described a demonstration and slogan-raising without identifying a common object falling within Section 141 IPC.

For Section 188 IPC, the FIR did not set out the relevant order or explain how the alleged conduct caused the statutory harm; for Section 341 IPC, it identified no person actually prevented from proceeding, or the manner of restraint.

The allegations did not identify an act likely to spread infection or state that the petitioners were infected or had reason to believe they were infected, as required for Sections 269 and 270 IPC.

Nor did the FIR specify which COVID protocol was violated, how it was violated, or what direction under the Disaster Management Act the petitioners obstructed or refused to obey.

The Court therefore held that the FIR disclosed no prima facie case and that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

It quashed Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 169 of 2021, registered under Sections 143, 188, 341, 269 and 270 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, together with all consequential proceedings, including G.R. Case No. 901 of 2021 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.