The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against two men for allegedly blocking a highway during a protest following a fatal accident, holding that mere participation in a gathering, which was prompted by a genuine grievance, cannot automatically be equated with participation in every offence alleged in connection with it. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed a plea filed by two residents of Bantwala, who sought to quash an FIR registered against them by Vitla Police Station. The offences alleged against the accused were provisions such as Sections 189(2), 189(3), 191(2), 126(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint etc.

“…The fact that the protest was prompted by a fatal accident does not, by itself, justify blocking a public highway... A highway is meant for the movement of the public, and preventing vehicles from passing can cause considerable inconvenience and may also affect public safety. The grievance of the villagers could have been brought to the attention of the authorities through other means. The Court does not approve of the method adopted by the protesters… However, the impropriety of the method adopted does not, by itself, establish that every person present at the gathering committed the offences alleged”, the court noted in the order.

A complaint was lodged on 02.06.2025 alleging that the petitioners, along with others, blocked the highway and prevented vehicles from passing through.

The petitioners, however, submitted that a fatal accident had occurred at the same location a day earlier. They, along with villagers had gathered at the location to protest against the accident. According to the petitioners, their intention was to draw the attention of the authorities for the need for appropriate safety measures. Since the gathering was a spontaneous response to the fatal accident, and it was not motivated by any intention to commit an offence, the petitioners challenged the invocation of penal provisions against them.

On being asked whether the incident involved any damage to public property or vehicles plying on the highway, the state pleader submitted that no specific complaint of such damage had been made by anyone.

Hearing this, the court observed:

“…. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the complaint, it is apparent that the gathering took place in response to a fatal accident that had occurred at the same location the previous day… The immediate context of the gathering is, therefore, relevant in assessing the nature of the petitioners' conduct and whether the allegations warrant the continuation of criminal proceedings against them…”.

However, the Court did not approve of the method adopted by the protesters.

“…The material referred to by the parties does not disclose any specific allegation of damage to public property or vehicles. …The circumstances disclosed do not, without more, justify treating the petitioners' participation as criminal conduct warranting prosecution under all the provisions invoked…. The Court is conscious that public inconvenience cannot be disregarded merely because an assembly is prompted by a genuine grievance. At the same time, the criminal law must be applied with due regard to the actual allegations and the circumstances in which the alleged conduct occurred…”, the court opined.

Before parting, the court also clarified that the observations are limited to the circumstances mentioned in the plea. It should not be construed as an 'approval' for blocking a public highway for protest, the court said.

Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed and the FIR at Vitla Police Station was quashed.

Appearance: Adv. Abdul Ansar P. appeared for the petitioners. Adv. Rashmi Patle, HCGP, for the respondent-State.