The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application to quash the chargesheet filed against five persons accused of attacking and pelting stones at police officers when they were attempting to disperse a crowd assembled to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019. The chargesheet was filed on June 6, 2020, under Indian Penal Code Sections 147, 148, 332, 336, 353, 188, 427, 109, 120-B, 153A, 295A, and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
[CAA Protest] Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Chargesheet Against Men Accused Of Attacking, Pelting Stones At Police@ISalilTiwari reportshttps://t.co/4NK9VP7grH
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) September 9, 2022
The petitioners claimed in their petition to the high court that they had been wrongfully accused in the case owing to preexisting animosity with the local police. Their lawyer maintained that the applicants did not throw stones or injure anyone, including police officers, and that, according to the FIR, they had just assembled to oppose CAA.
According to the petitioners’ lawyer, who stated that one of the applicants is an engineer, protesting is a fundamental right of a citizen, and if a person is participating in a peaceful agitation, he cannot be accused in any criminal case.
Rejecting the appeal, Justice Sameer Jain’s bench stated, “In my view as FIR disclosed, prima facie, cognizable offences against the applicants, therefore, charge sheet pending against the applicants cannot be quashed.”
After reviewing the case record and considering the arguments advanced, the court noted that the FIR stated that a large mob gathered in a public place to protest the Citizenship Amendment Act (then Bill), and when the police arrived and informed the protestors that Section 144 CrPC had already been invoked in the city, and thus no procession could begin, the mob began stone pelting.
The court also disregarded two of the petitioners’ contention that they were mentioned in the FIR because of their animosity towards the case’s Investigating Officer. The court held that the proceeding against the petitioners could not be annulled on that basis.
