Mere Presence in a Protest Without Criminal Intent Does Not Attract Section 143 IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against MLA Sathish Reddy

“Mere participation in a gathering without evidence of a common unlawful object cannot render one criminally liable under Sections 143 or 149 IPC,”  the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru delivered a significant ruling quashing the FIR registered against Bommanahalli MLA Sathish Reddy under Sections 143, 188, 268 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar held that the complaint and FIR lacked the necessary ingredients to attract these penal provisions, especially in the absence of any overt act or evidence of unlawful intent.

The case originated from an FIR (Cr.No.439/2023) registered on December 2, 2023, by the Bommanahalli Police against Sri Sathish Reddy M. and others, based on a complaint filed by a police officer. The allegation was that the petitioner, along with 100–150 others, conducted a protest in violation of the Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021. The protest was allegedly organized without requisite permission, thereby causing public inconvenience.

The petitioner challenged the FIR under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), seeking quashing on the grounds of abuse of process and violation of fundamental rights.

Applicability of Sections 143 and 149 IPC (Unlawful Assembly):

The core legal issue revolved around whether the protest constituted an "unlawful assembly" as defined under Section 141 IPC. The Court emphasized that:

“Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object...”
— Charan Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205

Justice Krishna Kumar relied on a coordinate bench ruling in Athaulla Jokatte & Ors v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P. No. 4902/2023), which quashed similar proceedings due to lack of ingredients under Section 141. The Court held:

“Unless the common object of the assembly falls within any of the five categories specified under Section 141 IPC, mere numerical strength (more than 5 persons) does not constitute unlawful assembly.”

In the present case, the FIR made vague allegations without attributing any criminal force, obstruction, or common unlawful object to the petitioner.

Violation of Licensing Order Without Penal Provision:

Though the complaint referred to violation of the Bengaluru City Protest Order, 2021, the Court noted:

“The said provision has not been invoked while registering the FIR… [as] the enactment does not contain any penal provision for the police authorities to take action.”

This omission, the Court held, was fatal to the legality of the FIR.

Section 188 IPC – Disobedience to Order Promulgated by Public Servant:

The Court reiterated the settled legal position from Jeevanandham v. State (2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13698), wherein it was held that:

“Offences under Section 188 IPC can be taken cognizance of only upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned, as per Section 195 CrPC.”

Thus, police filing a direct FIR and not following the procedure under Section 195 CrPC rendered the proceedings invalid.

No Allegation of Obstruction or Public Nuisance under Section 268 IPC:

There was no specific assertion or evidence of obstruction or common nuisance caused by the petitioner that would attract Section 268 IPC. As such, the allegation remained vague and devoid of prosecutable content.

• The High Court quashed the FIR registered in Crime No. 439/2023.

• It held that the complaint lacked specific allegations and did not meet the statutory requirements to invoke Sections 143, 149, 188, or 268 IPC.

• The proceedings were found to be an abuse of process, infringing upon the fundamental right to peaceful protest.

This judgment reiterates critical safeguards in criminal jurisprudence concerning the right to protest, procedural sanctity under Section 195 CrPC, and the requirement of specific allegations for offences like unlawful assembly. It emphasizes that criminal liability must be based on clear evidence of intent, common object, and overt acts—not merely presence at a protest.

Date of Decision: 11 July 2025