High Court quashes FIR against Punjab CM Mann, AAP leaders in 2020 protest case

Nearly six years after the registration of a case alleging stone-pelting at police personnel during a protest, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Saturday quashed the FIR, the chargesheet and all subsequent proceedings against Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and AAP leaders Baljinder Kaur, Manjit Singh Bilaspur and Harpal Singh Cheema.

Allowing the petitions, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya asserted: “There was no reason for the police to stop the protesters from marching ahead towards the (then) Chief Minister’s residence, as admittedly prohibitory order under Section 144 of the CrPC had not been issued.”

The FIR in the matter was registered on January 10, 2020, on a police official’s complaint. As per the allegations, the petitioners were part of a protest held by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers moving towards the official residence of Punjab’s then Chief Minister in Chandigarh. The police had barricaded the road and informed them that a gathering of more than five persons in the city was in violation of a notification issued under Section 144 CrPC.

It was further alleged that the petitioners, being leaders of the protesting group, instigated the party workers. The mob suddenly started pelting stones after a water cannon was used on them. During all this, some of the officials sustained injuries.

Justice Dahiya referred to complete absence of actionable role attributed to the petitioners. “Nobody has been named from amongst the persons present who allegedly pelted stones on the police force. Besides, it is not the case that the petitioners asked them to do so. The nature of alleged instigation by the petitioners has also not been mentioned; nor have specific words or gestures of any kind been attributed to them. Therefore, there is no basis to ascribe the alleged act of throwing stones by the mob to the petitioners.”

Referring to the injuries cited by the prosecution, Justice Dahiya observed: “The nature of injuries suffered by the officials are abrasions, pain and swelling which could be the result of shoving and jostling by the mob in an effort to push its way ahead.”

The court made it clear that the injuries were inconsistent with allegations under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC, which require proof of “voluntarily causing hurt” or “use of criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty”.

“The petitioners have not been specifically accused of voluntarily causing any assault, hurt or using criminal force to deter the public servants from discharging duties. The nature of injuries suffered by the officials also dispels any role of the petitioners, as the same appear to be a result of grappling and pushing,” the Bench observed.

Justice Dahiya added that the police action itself triggered a brief unrest. “It is a case where no act, voluntary or otherwise, has been attributed to the petitioners. Instead, the allegations are that on shooting mild water on the mob, they started pelting stones which hit the officials present there. The immediate trigger for the mob turning furious and behaving the way it did appear to be the shooting of water on them as per orders of the Duty Magistrate.”

The Bench added it was not the respondent’s case that the assembly of protesters was unlawful, as the prohibitory orders under Section 144 had not been issued.” Consequently, the essential ingredients of rioting and common object under Sections 146, 147 and 149 IPC were held to be entirely absent.

The court further noted that the investigation offered nothing to connect the petitioners to any offence. “The investigating agency has failed to come up with any material indicating any definite role to the petitioners in this regard as well.” There was also no allegation that protesters were armed, carried sticks or stones, or acted at the behest of the petitioners.

Allowing the petitions, the Bench asserted that the ingredients of none of the offences alleged could “be said to have been made out against any of the petitioners even prima facie.”

HC quashes FIR against Aman Arora, others   

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Saturday quashed an FIR registered in October 2021, chargesheet, and all subsequent proceedings against AAP leaders including Aman Arora, Jarnail Singh, Jai Krishan Rouri, Kulwant Pandori, Manjit Singh Bilaspur, and Anmol Gagandeep Maan, in connection with alleged stone-pelting incidents during protests in Chandigarh.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya passed the orders on petitions seeking the quashing of FIR registered on October 6, 2021, at North police station in Chandigarh, along with the final investigation report under Section 173 of the CrPC dated April 10, 2022, and the charge sheet/order framing charge dated March 18, 2023.

Justice Dahiya observed that “nobody has been named from amongst the persons present who allegedly pelted stones on the police force. Also, it is not the case that the petitioners asked them to do so. The nature of alleged instigation by petitioners has also not been mentioned; nor have specific words or gestures of any kind been attributed to them.”

The Court further noted that “it is a case where no act, voluntary or otherwise, has been attributed to the petitioners. Instead, the allegations are that being stopped from marching ahead, the mob turned violent. The nature of injuries suffered by the officials are abrasions, pain and small laceration. The investigating agency has failed to come up with any material indicating any definite role to the petitioners in this regard as well.”

Justice Dahiya added the nature of injuries endured by the officials dispelled any role to the petitioners. The same appeared to be a result of jostling and pushing by the mob in an attempt to break through the barricades. There was also no allegation that the protesters were armed or carrying any sticks, stones, etc.

Referring to the absence of essential ingredients for the offences alleged, the Court held: “Consequently, ingredients of none of the offences alleged can be said to have been made out against any of the petitioners even prima facie. And there was no ground to take cognizance of the offences against them or frame the charge vide impugned order dated March 18, 2023.”