FIR against SLST job-seeker protesters quashed after Calcutta High Court finds no charged offence made out from the allegations

The petitioners, described as SLST 2016 job seekers, sought to quash Park Street Police Station Case No. 78 of 2023 and remove their names from the proceedings.

The FIR alleged that on 2 August 2023 they blocked the MLA Hostel’s main gate while members of the Legislative Assembly were preparing to leave, thereby confining them, and that the crowd became violent and assaulted police personnel, causing injuries.

The case was registered under Sections 143, 145, 147, 149, 341, 342, 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); the investigation was stated to be pending.

The petitioners invoked Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) and sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether, taking the FIR allegations at face value, the essential ingredients of the charged IPC offences were disclosed so as to justify continuation of the investigation and proceedings

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

The High Court may quash an FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution or its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where, among other recognised categories, the allegations—even if accepted in full—do not prima facie constitute an offence, or the proceeding is manifestly mala fide

In assessing an FIR, the Court considers whether its allegations disclose an offence, without deciding their reliability or the merits of the case

Sections 141, 143, 145, 147 and 149 IPC require, among other elements, an unlawful assembly and its specified common object; Sections 341 and 342 require wrongful restraint and confinement, respectively; Sections 353 and 332 require the specified assault, criminal force or voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant in the circumstances set out in those provisions

The rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Court treated the FIR’s allegations as true but found that they did not identify a common object falling within Section 141 IPC; accordingly, it held that the offences dependent on an unlawful assembly were not disclosed.

It further found no adequate particulars identifying which MLA was restrained, or how and for how long any person was confined, and concluded that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of Sections 341 and 342 IPC.

As to Sections 353 and 332, the Court considered that the FIR did not specify which petitioners assaulted or used criminal force against police personnel, or voluntarily caused hurt to deter them from performing their duties.

It therefore concluded that the FIR disclosed no prima facie case and fell within categories (1), (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal.

It quashed Park Street Police Station Case No. 78 of 2023, dated 2 August 2023, and all consequential proceedings, including G.R. Case No. 875 of 2023 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

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