Delhi HC quashes FIR against SSC aspirant, says protest presence alone cannot imply guilt

An SSC aspirant booked after a protest at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan secured relief from the Delhi High Court, which ruled that his presence in the gathering was insufficient to prosecute him without material linking him to an offence.

Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the FIR, noting that neither the complaint nor the subsequent police status report attributed any specific criminal conduct to the petitioner.

The bench said that mere participation in a demonstration does not by itself establish a "common intention" to disobey police directions or obstruct police personnel.

The petitioner had participated in the protest at Ramlila Maidan in August last year over alleged irregularities in the conduct of the SSC entrance examination.

The prosecution claimed that certain organisers refused to conclude the demonstration after the expiry of the permitted time and instigated the gathering to remain at the venue until their demands were fulfilled.

The police registered the FIR alleging that certain protestors disobeyed the prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as they continued to occupy the ground and some of them pushed and scuffled with police personnel.

Giving relief to the petitioner, the court stated that neither the FIR nor the subsequent status report attributed any criminal conduct specifically to him, and his mere presence among the protesters, in the absence of a common intention to commit a crime with others, was not sufficient to establish the offence under section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The provision penalises 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 etc to persons lawfully employed.

"The petitioner cannot 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. The continuation of the proceedings against him, in these circumstances, would serve no worthwhile purpose," said the court in the order passed on October 13.

"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," it held.