Right To Peaceful Protest Cannot Be Curtailed By Frivolous Criminal Cases: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against SDPI Leaders
The Court found that the charge sheet disclosed neither obstruction of the Chief Minister’s convoy nor criminal force against a public servant, and showed at most a roadside protest involving SDPI and black flags.
The Karnataka High Court has held that the constitutional right to conduct a peaceful protest cannot be curtailed by initiating criminal proceedings against the protestors based on frivolous allegations.
The High Court quashed the proceedings against 20 persons described in the complaint as SDPI leaders who had allegedly staged a protest demanding the resignation of then State Minister K.S. Eshwarappa.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 353 and 290 read with Section 149 of the IPC arising from an alleged attempt to obstruct the convoy of the then Chief Minister of Karnataka.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K observed: “… the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the right to conduct a peaceful protest is a Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India merits consideration. Such a right cannot be curtailed by initiating criminal proceedings on the basis of frivolous allegations.”
The Court further observed: “A perusal of the charge-sheet material does not disclose that the petitioners had either obstructed the convoy vehicle of the Chief Minister or made any attempt to use criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his official duties. There is also no specific allegation attributing any act of mischief to the petitioners. Even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken at their face value, the materials would, at best, indicate an attempt on the part of the petitioners to stage a protest, and admittedly, no overt act constituting the alleged offences is established from the charge-sheet material.”
Advocate Lethif B. appeared for the petitioners. High Court Government Pleader Mahesha P. appeared for the State.
Background
The then Chief Minister was scheduled to attend a programme in Dakshina Kannada district. A police sub-inspector and another person were deployed for security duty near a junction through which the convoy was expected to pass.
The complaint alleged that, when the convoy reached the junction, a group of 15 to 20 persons approached from a nearby road carrying SDPI flags and black flags. They were allegedly raising slogans demanding K.S. Eshwarappa’s resignation in connection with a death that had occurred the previous day.
The complaint further alleged that the group moved towards the Chief Minister’s vehicle, raised slogans and obstructed the convoy. The police initially registered offences relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint and public nuisance. After investigation, the charge-sheet also invoked Section 353 of the IPC, which concerned assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from discharging official duties.
The petitioners argued that the complaint and charge-sheet disclosed no actual assault or use of criminal force against any public servant, no act of mischief and no ingredients of the alleged offences. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the statements of the material witnesses and eyewitnesses prima facie disclosed their involvement and that the allegations should be examined during trial.
Court’s Observations
Complaint Concerned A Roadside Protest
The Court examined the complaint and noted that the original allegation concerned a protest staged on the roadside to demand the resignation of a State Minister.
It observed: “As could be gathered from the complaint averments, initially, the FIR was registered on the basis of the suo-moto complaint lodged by respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 and 290 r/w 149 of IPC. The specific allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners had staged a protest by demanding the resignation of one of the Minister of the State, on the roadside at a place called Valachil.”
The Court found that the charge-sheet material did not support the allegation that the petitioners had obstructed the convoy. It also disclosed no attempt to use criminal force against a public servant or any specific act of mischief.
Standing By Roadside With Flags Did Not Constitute Invoked Offences
The Court considered the statements of the material witnesses, including eyewitnesses, and found that they described an attempt to protest by standing on the roadside and displaying organizational flags.
It held: “Even the statements of the material witnesses, including the eyewitnesses, disclose that the petitioners had merely attempted to stage a protest by standing on the roadside and displaying the flags of their organization, such an act, by itself, would not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 353, 290 or the other provisions of the IPC invoked against them.”
The Court found no overt act satisfying the ingredients of the offences alleged in the charge-sheet. The materials, even when accepted at face value, indicated no more than an attempt to stage a protest.
Continuing Prosecution Would Be Abuse Of Process
Having found the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences absent, the Court held that the criminal case could not be permitted to continue.
It observed: “In the aforesaid circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners, in the absence of the necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.”
The Court accordingly exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to terminate the proceedings.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against all 20 petitioners for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 353 and 290 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
It held that the charge-sheet materials disclosed neither obstruction of the Chief Minister’s convoy nor criminal force against a public servant or any specific act of mischief. The materials showed, at most, an attempt to conduct a roadside protest. The Court separately recognised the right to peaceful protest as a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19.
Cause Title: Abdul Jaleel alias Yaseen Arkula and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:59324)