Mere Participation In Demonstration Doesn’t Establish Common Intention: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against SCC Aspirant
The Delhi High Court was considering a Petition filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of the BNS.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against an aspirant of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) while observing that mere participation in the demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 223(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “The invocation of Section 3(5) of the BNS does not alter this position. The principle of common intention requires that the criminal act be committed in furtherance of an intention shared by the persons sought to be held jointly liable. Mere participation in the same demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel. The material on record does not disclose any basis for attributing such common intention to the Petitioner.”
Factual Background
The matter emanated from a protest organised at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, on August 24, 2025, by aspirants of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), concerning alleged irregularities in the conduct of examinations. Permission had been granted for holding a peaceful demonstration. According to the prosecution, approximately 800 to 1,000 persons assembled at the venue.
It was alleged that certain organisers refused to conclude the demonstration and instigated the gathering to remain at the venue until their demands were fulfilled. It was further alleged that, despite repeated announcements regarding the prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, the protesters continued to occupy the ground and some of them pushed and scuffled with police personnel. 44 persons, including the Petitioner, were detained, and the impugned FIR was registered.
Advocate Gaurav Arya represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General Amol Sinha represented the Respondent.
Arguments
The petitioner claimed that he is a competitive examination aspirant who had attended the protest to express his grievances regarding the SSC examinations. It was contended that he was implicated merely because he was present at the venue after the permitted time. It was further submitted that there was no material to establish that he knew any particular prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to Section 223(a) of the BNS, which penalizes disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, where the person concerned has knowledge of such order, and the disobedience causes, or tends to cause, obstruction, annoyance or injury, or the risk thereof, to persons lawfully employed. “Thus, knowledge of the order and disobedience thereof are essential elements of the offence”, it added.
The Bench found that the allegations concerning refusal to vacate the ground, instigation of the protesters and scuffling with police personnel were directed against the organisers or the gathering generally and no conduct was specifically attributed to the Petitioner.
“However, for an offence under Section 223(a) of the BNS to be made out, the disobedience must also cause, or tend to cause, the consequences specified in the provision. The material on record does not disclose how the Petitioner’s continued presence, in the circumstances alleged, attracted this further requirement. His mere presence amongst the protesters cannot, without more, be treated as sufficient to establish the offence”, it stated.
According to the Bench, the Petitioner could not be subjected to criminal proceedings merely on account of his presence amongst the protesters, in the absence of material indicating his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or any common intention to commit the offence.
Decision
“The continuation of the proceedings against him, in these circumstances, would serve no worthwhile purpose”, the Bench held while allowing the petition and quashing the FIR.
Cause Title: Khurshid Ahmed v. State of NCT of Delhi (Case No.:W.P.(CRL) 2356/2026
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Gaurav Arya, Naveen Bamel, Harsh Goyal, Manav Trivedi
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Amol Sinha, Advocates Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Nitish Dhawan, Anshul Sharma, SI Virender