Must have:

share this post:

PEOPLE GATHERED FOR DEMOCRATIC PROTEST IS NOT AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY

summary:

Points for consideration

FACTS

2. The allegation in the final report is that on 21.09.2016, the petitioners unlawfully assembled and made a protest to arrest the persons who attacked their party members. While doing so, the accused also restrained the public and squattered the public road. Thereby, they had committed the offences under Sections 147 and 188 of I.P.C.

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY

6. It is also relevant to note the definition of Unlawful Assembly:

‘Unlawful Assembly –

An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is –
(i) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
(ii) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(iii) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(iv) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(v) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.’

7. Only when the assembly fit into any of the above circumstances, it could be construed as unlawful. The materials collected by the prosecution do not show that the accused had shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime or any offence or by way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or right to use of incorporeal right which is in possession of enjoyment of others or rights.

8. Similarly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused has assembled to commit any offence. When the prosecution prima facie failed to establish that the assembly of five or more persons with a common object to commit any offence or any of the circumstances shown under Section 147, mere assembly of more than five persons cannot be construed that there is an unlawful assembly. Therefore, when the people gathered to show the protest in a democratic way, such a protest, in the absence of any ingredients of offence under Section 147 cannot be construed as unlawful assembly.

9. Similarly to attract the offence under Section 188 there must be disobedience to order duly promulgated by the public servant. In this case there is evidence available to show that the accused has assembled to resist or execution of any law and there is no whisper whatsoever available in the First Information Report or in the other materials to show that there were promulgation or there were any prohibitory order existed at the relevant point of time. In this regard it is relevant to refer to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Moogambigai S.Thirugnanasammantham and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karur reported in 2021 0 Supreme [Mad] 555, wherein it has been held as follows:

‘…. (9) When the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected by the prosecution does not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused and the prosecution itself is instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, this Court can exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with regard to quashing of the charge sheet for the offence under Section 188 IPC, this Court in Jeevanandam and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl) 606 has relied a judgment in V.Gowthaman and others Vs. State rep. by its Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai reported in ‘2018 (4) CTC 252′ and held that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Section 188 IPC is not permissible and therefore, the prosecution of the accused under Section 188 IPC stands quashed.’

PARTY: Gunasekar vs. State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police Station, Ariyalur District – Crl.O.P. No: 15459 of 2022 – 08.07.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/669846

Gunasekar vs. State – democratic protest

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe For News

Get the latest sports news from News Site about world, sports and politics.

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Subscribe For More!

Get the latest and creative news updates on criminal law...

You have been successfully Subscribed! Ops! Something went wrong, please try again.

Disclaimer:

Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.

For further reading visit our ‘About‘ page.

© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES

Crypto wallet - Game Changer

Questions explained agreeable preferred strangers too him beautiful her son.