LI Network
Published on: February 15, 2024 at 15:20 IST
The Jharkhand High Court has discharged Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey from a criminal case, asserting that a public representative has the right to engage in a peaceful demonstration to raise legitimate public issues.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, emphasized that the petitioner had not engaged in any violent acts during the peaceful demonstration.
The petition sought to overturn an order issued by the Sessions Judge, Godda, which upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
The case revolved around an incident where the petitioner allegedly organized demonstrations and blocked a road near the Primary Health Centre, Poraiyahat.
The petitioner and associates reportedly obstructed a patrol vehicle, causing a traffic jam and refused to disperse despite requests. The petitioner relented only after the jam was cleared at their request around 11:45 p.m.
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s participation in a demonstration, as mentioned in the FIR, where police officials were reportedly obstructed.
However, it noted that the crowd dispersed peacefully upon the petitioner’s request, and no overt acts against public servants were alleged.
The Court questioned the prosecution solely based on the FIR, especially in light of constitutional protections under Article 19, as the FIR did not indicate that the Deputy Commissioner ordered the crowd to disperse.
Emphasizing the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and movement, the Court protected peaceful assembly under Article 19, as long as it did not involve offensive language or violence. With no allegations of criminal force against public servants, the Court found Section 353 of the IPC inapplicable.
Regarding Section 186 of the IPC, the Court observed that following the procedure outlined in Section 195 of the CrPC is mandatory for offenses under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC. This means cases cannot be registered solely based on an FIR, and specific authorities must file complaints.
The Court also clarified that Sections 141, 283, 290, and 291 of the IPC were not applicable, as the FIR did not mention elements such as weapons, danger, obstruction, or injury.
The Bench affirmed the discharge of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and careful assessment of allegations.
Case Title: Nishikant Dubey (Member of Parliament) v State of Jharkhand concluded with the Court overturning the impugned order and confirming the discharge of the petitioner.
