Woman Holding Peaceful Processions Not An Offence - Himachal Pradesh High Court

OVERVIEW

• An FIR was registered against a female Advocate and member of the Shimla District Court’s Bar Association under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for being present at the site where peaceful protests were being carried on to restrict entry to the District Court Complex through a shorter route, forcing them to take a longer route, resulting in a delay in the Court attendance.
• Such FIR was quashed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court by upholding that holding peaceful processions, raising slogans, would not be and cannot be an offence under the Indian Constitution. The matter was heard by a single bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara. He went on to say that even if all the allegations made were correct, then also it would not have amounted to a punishable offence under the laws in force at the time being.

BACKGROUND 

• A silent procession was being held by some Lawyers in an attempt to restrict entry to the District Court Complex, which forced them to take a longer route, resulting in a delay in attending the Courts, because of traffic jams in that route.
• An FIR was registered against one Advocate and member of the Shimla District Court’s Bar Association, Ms. Anita, who was present at the site of the protests. She had been charged with wrongful restraint, forming unlawful assembly, rioting, indulging in criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duties, intentional insult to breach the peace, and criminal intimidation.
• The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh was of the opinion that “the Police registered a concocted FIR due to wreaking vengeance with malicious intentions to scuttle the agitation. The Police arraigned her as an accused because she was supporting their cause.”
• The Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR and all the consequential proceedings are also quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 

FURTHER DETAILS 

• The Constitution of India, in its Article 19 (b), guarantees to every citizen the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
• The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the provision of the Law of the land to justify the quashing of the FIR in question.
• The Court further observed that the role of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned in the FIR.
• Justice Anoop Chitkara noted the settled law that non-compoundable offences can also be compounded, and the procedure to follow would be by quashing the FIR, and consequent proceedings.
• The Court also observed that even if it were to assume that she was present at the spot of the protest, it would still not lead to automatic inference of her acting with a common object with those who had inflicted fist blows, hurled abuses, and threatened the SHO, and also threatened to burn the Police Station.
• The Court went on to reason that the mere presence of the petitioner at the site of the demonstration does not amount to her being involved in some criminal act.
• Keeping in mind all these analyses, the HP HC in its order quashed the FIR and nullified the consequent proceedings based on this FIR, stating “naming and arraigning the petitioner as an accused is a gross abuse of the process of law. If proceedings are allowed to be continued, it shall amount to the miscarriage of Justice.” 

CONCLUSION 

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court granted the prayer of the petitioner in quashing the FIR registered against her under various Sections of IPC. In the single bench, Justice Anoop Chitkara opined that the instant case was one where it could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• The Justice cited the case of Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh, where it was stated by the Supreme Court that “once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated.”
• Thus, the accused in the FIR was found to be not guilty of the charges pressed against her in the same. 

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE POLICE? DO YOU THINK THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN QUASHING THE SAID FIR? DO LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!