Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and others under section 143, 186, 283, 290, 291 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken by the learned court on 08.06.2013 under those sections of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in the First Information Report the allegations are made that the petitioner and others were agitating in Poraiyahat Block. Further by way of taking the contents of the First Information Report he submits that there is no overt act and the petitioner himself as asked the demonstrators to leave the place which has come in the First Information Report. He further submits that the ingredients of those sections are not made out. By way of referring to the definition of 'unlawful assembly' he refers to section 141 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that there is no criminal force or obstruction in discharging the duty by any of the public servant. He further submits penal sections of section 141 I.P.C is section 143 I.P.C. He submits that in light of definition of section 186 I.P.C. there is no voluntary obstruction in discharging the duty by any of the public servant and in view of that, section 186 of the I.P.C is not attracted. He submits that there was no danger and only a peaceful demonstration was going on and in view of that, section 283 I.P.C is not attracted. He submits that section 290 and section 291 I.P.C are with regard to public nuisance and repeat or continuance of such nuisance respectively. He submits that those sections are also not attracted. By way of referring section 353 I.P.C he submits that there was no criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his duty and in view of that, section 353 I.P.C is not attracted. So far section 353 I.P.C is concerned, he relied in the case of Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423 and he refers to paragraph nos.12 and 14 of the said judgment, which are as under:

14. Section 283 I.P.C speaks of causing danger, obstruction or injury. Nothing is there in the contents of the F.I.R. that any danger or injury was there. For application of section 290 I.P.C and section 291 I.P.C one has to go through the contents of the F.I.R and the tenor of the contents of the public nuisance in the F.I.R also attract Article 19 of the Constitution of India and if such situation is there, section 290 and 291 of the I.P.C are not attracted.

15. The public representative is entitled to raise a legitimate public issue and for that, a peaceful demonstration is going on everywhere. The petitioner is not indulged in any act of violence.