Karnataka High Court quashes case against 15 students over Rohith Vemula protest, noting permit rule applied to gatherings of over 250 people

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–15, were alleged to have assembled with approximately 100–150 students near Capital Hotel on 10 February 2016, in connection with the death of Rohith Remula, raised slogans and displayed flags, and obstructed traffic while proceeding towards Raj Bhavan to submit a representation

A charge-sheet was filed in C.C. No. 26971/2016 for offences under Sections 283, 341, 143 and 144 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC; the State opposed the petition, relying on witness statements and the need for trial

1. Whether the allegations and charge-sheet materials justified continuing proceedings against the petitioners for the alleged offences, including unlawful assembly and its common-object liability

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where the circumstances warrant its inherent intervention.

The Court considered Sections 283, 341, 143, 144 and 149 of the IPC, noting the prescribed penalties for Sections 283 and 341.

It relied on Charan Singh and Others v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205, for the principle that Section 149 liability requires proof of the unlawful assembly’s common object and that mere presence in an assembly is insufficient.

The Court also applied the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order, 2009, as requiring permission for the specified meetings or protests involving more than 250 persons.

The Court found that the charge-sheet alleged a gathering of 100–150 students, below the 250-person threshold it identified under the 2009 Order, and did not specify which provision of that Order the petitioners had violated.

It also noted that the charge-sheet named only the petitioners, not the other students allegedly present, and that the allegation was that the petitioners obstructed traffic while proceeding to give a representation.

Applying the reasoning in Charan Singh and its own decision in a similar matter, the Court concluded that the material did not warrant continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners.