Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed an FIR and chargesheet against two petitioners accused of unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy, finding that the allegations against them did not constitute an offence under the law. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Sonak stated that even if the allegations in the complaint were taken at face value, they did not establish the commission of any offence. The court observed that "mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not render any person automatically liable unless there is evidence to suggest that they were motivated by common objects set out in Section 141 IPC." The court also cited constitutional provisions protecting the right to peaceful assembly and held that prosecutions should not be used to stifle legitimate protests.

The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the quashing of FIR No. 2/2021 registered at Valpoi Police Station and subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch, as well as Chargesheet No. 96/2023 dated August 25, 2023. The petitioners, Tukaram Parab and Rohan Kalangutkar, contended that the allegations in the FIR did not establish any criminal offence against them and that the prosecution was an abuse of judicial process.

Also Read: A person to be guilty under Section 34 IPC must share both in the "criminal act" and in the "common intention, holds Supreme Court

The case arose from a protest in Valpoi, Goa, on January 6, 2021, against the proposed establishment of an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in the area. According to the FIR, a section of villagers opposed to the project gathered at the proposed site at around 11:30 a.m. to express their dissent. Allegations of violence prompted police intervention and the arrest of several agitators. Later that day, at approximately 4:00 p.m., a crowd of around 300 people, including the petitioners, reportedly marched to the Valpoi Police Station, raising slogans and demanding the release of the arrested protesters.

The complaint filed by Police Inspector Sagar Ekoskar alleged that the protestors "completely blocked the main road restricting the vehicular traffic and started giving slogans against the police, especially against PI Valpoi Police Station." It further stated that "the SDM and senior officers, on microphone, repeatedly requested the protesting crowd to remove the blockade. However, the crowd got even more agitated, and their leaders appealed to them to maintain blockade while threatening to storm inside the premises of Valpoi Police Station and cause destruction of government property and further injury to the government staff inside the premises."

The chargesheet filed against the petitioners included offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 341, 186, 353, and 120-B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners argued that there were no allegations that they had engaged in any violent conduct or caused any damage to property. They contended that their mere presence at the protest site could not justify criminal charges.

The court examined whether the FIR and chargesheet met the legal standards set in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which held that an FIR should be quashed if the allegations do not constitute an offence even when taken at face value. The court noted that "there are no clear allegations that the petitioners had assembled in the afternoon session or marched towards the Police Station with any unlawful object or with an objective to commit any crime."

The bench examined the distinction between a peaceful assembly and an unlawful assembly, citing judicial precedents. Referring to Sitaram v. Emperor (AIR 1925 Nag 260), the court stated that "the law does not declare the mere assemblage of men, however large, illegal. To be illegal, the assemblage must be inspired by an illegal object as specified in Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code." The judgment also referenced Queen Empress v. Peelimuthu Tewan (1901) 24 Mad 124, which held that the presence of a large crowd, even if armed with sticks, does not automatically imply an unlawful intent.

Applying these principles, the court found that "there are no allegations about the wielding of deadly weapons. There are no allegations of any actual destruction of Government property or injuries to the Government staff inside the Police Station premises." The court further referred to Madan Singh v. State of Bihar [2004] 4 SCC 622, where the Supreme Court held that "mere presence in an unlawful assembly does not render any person automatically liable unless there is evidence to suggest that they were motivated by common objects set out in Section 141 IPC." The bench held that there was no evidence of a shared unlawful objective among the petitioners.

The court also noted the constitutional protection granted under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. It warned against the misuse of penal provisions to suppress protests, stating that "prosecutions must not be launched to stifle agitations that are part of the democratic process so long as people do not take the law into their own hands or indulge in violence or damage to public or private property." The court further referenced Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan v. UOI (2018) 11 SCR 586 and Himmat Lal v. Commissioner (AIR 1973 SC 87) in reaffirming the right to protest.

Also Read: Andhra Pradesh High Court; : "Transfers Without Reasons 'Arbitrary', Violate Guidelines," "Employer Must Adhere to Prescribed Procedures"

In light of these findings, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the petitioners. The judgment stated, "For the above reasons, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 2/2021 registered at Valpoi Police Station (now transferred to the Crime Branch) and Charge Sheet No. 96/2023 dated 25.08.2023 filed before the J.M.F.C., Valpoi and since registered as Case No. IPC/33/2023 insofar as the Petitioners are concerned."

The court further held that "the Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any cost order." It also directed that "all concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the petitioners: Senior Advocate C. A. Ferreira appeared along with Advocates Nehal Govekar, Sujay Kamulkar, and Rakesh Naik.

For the respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai appeared on behalf of the State.

Case Title: Tukaram @ Manoj Parab & Anr. v. State of Goa

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:432-DB

Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 30 of 2021

Bench: Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice, and Justice M. S. Sonak

[Read/Download order]