Apartment Residents Coming Together To Prevent Public Authority From Discharging Its Duty Amounts To Unlawful Assembly U/S 143 IPC: Karnataka HC

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the contention of the petitioners that they are the residents of the Apartment and there is no illegal intention in assembling together. It said,

"The petitioners, being the owners of the Apartment, must be in the Apartment, but they all together joined their hands with an intention to prevent the public authority while discharging duty, which attracts Section 149 of IPC i.e. common object and unlawful assembly under Section 143 of IPC for committing an offence on the public servant."

As per the complaint registered by Malathi, an Executive Engineer of BBMP, the officials went to remove the encroachment and to do wire fencing work. However, the petitioners, who are staying in Shilpitha Splendour Annex, illegally gathered and prevented them from discharging duty and executing the order of the High Court.

The petitioners argued that they peacefully went on strike and they have not agitated against the police or the BBMP officials. Further, it was argued that the offence against the petitioners under Section 353 of IPC would not be attracted, as they are the residents of the Apartment and there is no illegal intention in assembling together. That the right to assemble is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19 of Constitution of India.

Findings:

The bench noted the photographs and video clippings of the incident which prima facie reveal that the BBMP officials were prevented by the petitioners. It observed,

"There is a clear case of attracting Section 353 of IPC against the petitioners for having obstructed the complainant along with BBMP officers and the ADLR while surveying the encroachment and put up fencing as per the order of this Court...That apart, it is an admitted fact that subsequent to the registering the case against the petitioners, the BBMP officers were able to put fencing on the area recovered from the encroachment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offences are not made out for investigating the matter."

There is prima facie material to show that there is cognizable offence made out for conducting investigation, it added and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6123 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 482

Date of Order: 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

Appearance: C.K. NANDA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE for petitioners.

R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1.

AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2.