NISHANT MENON Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code"), has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 0493, dtd. 15/10/2018, under Ss. 341 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as "IPC"), registered in Police Station Una Sadar, District Una, H.P.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that a boy namely Sumit, who was a local resident of Raipur, was missing since September, 2018 and in the month of October, 2018, he was found hanged on a tree. As per the local people of the area, the deceased was murdered and in order to demand fair and honest investigation of mysterious murder of the deceased, the people of the area gathered and portrayed their distress in a peaceful manner. There was no violence and damage to the public property. However, the traffic police in order to evacuate the local residents from the place of incident, lodged F.I.R No. 0493, dtd. 15/10/2018, under Ss. 341 and 143 of IPC, against some persons gathered there and later on name of the petitioner was also incorporated in the FIR without there being any guilt of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the police investigation, the people of the area were taking out a procession and blocking the road in order to demand a fair investigation with respect to the death of a boy, who was found hanged on a tree and they were only pressurizing the authorities. He has further argued that as per the police investigation it was only a procession and there was no assembly, as people were not standing in a place. He has argued that since there was no assembly and it was a simple procession and no hindrance to any traffic or movement of the people was caused, no case is made out against the petitioner under Ss. 143 and 341 of IPC and furthermore, name of the petitioner was not incorporated in the FIR initially. He has further argued that there is nothing on record to suggest that any person was wrongfully restraint to go to a direction where he wanted to go and thus, the present proceedings against the petitioner are abuse of the process of law. He has argued that right to procession is recognized as a fundamental right by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and prayed that FIR against the petitioner is required to be quashed.