Chandigarh administration moves SC against HC order quashing rioting case against Mann
Though the plea filed came up for hearing before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, the counsel appearing for the Chandigarh administration sought some time
While quashing the case against the petitioners, the high court had said they have not been specifically accused of voluntarily causing any assault, hurt or using criminal force to deter the public servants from discharging duties. (File Photo/Enhanced using AI) The Chandigarh administration has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which quashed a 2020 FIR in an alleged rioting case against several AAP leaders, including Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.
Though the plea filed came up for hearing before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, the counsel appearing for the Chandigarh administration sought some time saying they would file a petition in relation to some other persons who were granted relief by the high court in the matter.
On November 29 last year, the high court had quashed an FIR, the chargesheet and all subsequent proceedings against Mann and Aam Aadmi Party leaders holding that no prima facie case was made out and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The FIR, registered in January 2020 on the complaint of a woman constable, alleged that several AAP leaders, including Mann, incited around 750-800 party workers to surround the residence of the then chief minister of Punjab. It was alleged that the leaders and workers started pushing and shoving the police force deployed on the spot during the protest march against hike in electricity tariff. The police had invoked charges related to rioting, unlawful assembly, assault and obstruction of public servants under various provisions of the IPC.
In its order, the high court had noted that a charge sheet was filed in the case in July 2021 against the petitioners before it for the alleged offences including under Section 147 (punishment for rioting) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Before the high court, the counsel appearing for the petitioners, including Mann, had argued that no overt act or injury was specifically attributed to them.
They had also contended that in the absence of any order under section 144 of the CrPC, the police could not have prevented them from protesting peacefully or carrying out the demonstration.
However, the counsel for the Chandigarh administration had argued in the high court that the petitioners along with other protestors were leading an unlawful political protest which had “turned unruly”. “There was no reason for the police to stop the protestors from marching ahead towards the chief minister’s residence, as admittedly a prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) had not been issued,” the high court had noted.
While quashing the case against the petitioners, the high court had said they have not been specifically accused of voluntarily causing any assault, hurt or using criminal force to deter the public servants from discharging duties.
The court further noted that injuries suffered by police personnel were minor in nature, such as abrasions and swelling, and had occurred during crowd-control measures, which were insufficient to establish intentional assault under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC. The High Court also held that there was no valid prohibitory order in force at the time, and therefore the gathering could not automatically be treated as an unlawful assembly for the purposes of Sections 147 and 149 IPC.
The court observed that mere presence at, or leadership of, a protest could not by itself amount to rioting or unlawful assembly in the absence of evidence of force, violence or instigation.
Share
