Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes rioting case against CM Bhagwant Mann

“Ingredients of none of the offences alleged can be said to have been made out against any of the petitioners even prima facie,” the court held.

Background

The case pertains to January 10, 2020, when Chandigarh Police booked Mann and seven party MLAs on charges of rioting, assault and obstructing police from performing their duties during a protest near the MLA hostel in Sector 4, Chandigarh, against the power tariff hike.

Chandigarh Police filed a case at the Sector 3 police station and then filed the chargesheet under Sections 147 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments

Senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu appearing for Mann submitted that in the absence of prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC, the police could not have prevented them from protesting peacefully or carrying out demonstrations.

He further argued that essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC were not made out.

State’s counsel, Manish Bansal, Viren Sibal, Rajiv Vij, submitted that the police officials were assaulted which resulted in injuries to them. It was further submitted that the mob was instigated to obstruct and assault police officials.

Findings

The court noted that the chargesheet did not disclose any material establishing the involvement of CM Mann and AAP party workers in the alleged offences.

The court further observed that there wasn’t any reason for the police to stop protestors from marching towards the CM’s residence, as prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC were not issued.

The court noted that the investigating agency had failed to present any material indicating their role in injuries suffered by the police officers during the protest.

“The petitioners have not been specifically accused of voluntarily causing any assault, hurt or using criminal force to deter the public servants from discharging duties. The nature of injuries suffered by the officials also dispels any role of the petitioners, as the same appear to be a result of grappling and pushing, as discussed hereinbefore,” the court said.

The court also noted that there was no basis to ascribe the alleged act of throwing stones by the mob to the petitioners. It further added that the immediate trigger for the mob to turn furious appeared to be shooting water on them.

“Ingredients of none of the offences alleged can be said to have been made out against any of the petitioners even prima facie,” it said.

The court, therefore, quashed the FIR and the chargesheet with all subsequent proceedings.

Former Punjab advocate general and senior advocate Sidhu told The Indian Express, “This is an aggravated offence and therefore only complaint lies. The state said these are distinct offences- Sections 186, 332 and 333, but we argued that these aren’t distinct offences as it’s a part and parcel of the same transaction. When there is an obstruction (to the public official) only then it will be a connected offence. Therefore, under Bar of Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, only a complaint is maintainable.”