P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Anu Tuli Azta Vs. State of H.P. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (22 Feb 2021)

Holding peaceful processions, raising slogans cannot be considered as an offence under Constitution of India, 1950

MANU/HP/0107/2021

Criminal

The Petitioner, who is an Advocate and member of the Shimla District Courts Bar Association, has come up before present Court seeking quashing of FIR, registered for wrongful restraint, forming unlawful assembly, rioting, indulging in criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duties, intentional insult to breach the peace, and criminal intimidation. It has been averred that, the lawyers were protesting peacefully against restricting the entries to the District Court complex from a shorter route, forcing them to take a longer way, which had traffic jams, resulting in a delay in attending to the Courts. The Police registered a concocted FIR due to wreaking vengeance with malicious intentions to scuttle the agitation. The Police arraigned her as an accused because she was supporting their cause.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that, even if all allegations recorded in FIR and investigation are hypothetically accepted to be true and correct, still such allegations fail to make out any prima facie case against the Petitioner. Thus, FIR and proceedings be quashed.

The FIR nowhere mentions the role of the Petitioner. Even if present Court presumes the Petitioner present at the spot, it would still not lead to an automatic inference of her acting with a common object with those who had inflicted fist blows, hurled abuses, and threatened the SHO, and also threatened to burn the Police Station. Although, the police got a video recording of the incident, the State did not refer to the said portion of the disk at which time frame, the Petitioner was video recorded inflicting fist blows, hurling abuses, or threatening the SHO, or threatening to burn the Police station. In the complaint, the SHO did not mention the time, and there is no explanation of its non-mentioning. Pinpointing the time was crucial because the Petitioner could have taken the plea of alibi.

Even if present Court believes all the allegations in FIR as truthful, still there is no allegation against the Petitioner of participating in any criminal act. Mere presence at the spot in the demonstration would not invite criminal act in the facts and nature of allegations made in the present FIR.

Holding peaceful processions, raising slogans, would not be and cannot be an offence under India's Constitution. Therefore, naming and arraigning the Petitioner as an accused is a gross abuse of the process of law. Present is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is invoked. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of CrPC to interfere in this kind of matter. The FIR registered under Sections 341, 143, 147, 149, 353, 504, and 506 of IPC, is quashed qua the Petitioner. Petition allowed.

Tags : PEACEFUL PROCESSIONS   FIR   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved