Court holds that mere participation in spontaneous protest without allegations of damage or overt criminal acts does not warrant prosecution under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
In a significant judgment delivered on October 8, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, quashed the FIR registered against Abdul Samad and another petitioner for allegedly blocking a highway following a fatal accident in Dakshina Kannada district. The Court ruled that while blocking a public highway is not an approved form of protest due to the inconvenience caused to the public, mere participation in such a spontaneous protest cannot automatically attract criminal liability under the penal provisions invoked.
The incident arose after a fatal accident occurred on the highway, prompting villagers including the petitioners to hold a protest at the same spot the following day to draw the authorities' attention towards the need for enhanced safety measures. The FIR registered under Sections 189(2), 189(3), 191(2), 126(2), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 accused the petitioners of blocking the highway and preventing vehicles from passing.
The Court noted that no specific allegations were made regarding damage to public property or vehicles during the protest. It emphasized that while the method of protest-blocking a highway-was improper, the grievance arising out of the fatal accident was genuine and the protest was spontaneous. The Court held that the criminal law must be applied with due regard to the actual allegations and the surrounding circumstances, and mere presence at the protest does not amount to commission of all offences alleged.
Rejecting the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, the Court stated that the complaint lacked sufficient material to justify prosecution under all the invoked sections. It clarified that this decision does not amount to an endorsement of blocking public highways as a protest method but recognizes the right to protest must be balanced against public safety and convenience.
The Karnataka High Court's decision sends a clear message about the nuanced application of criminal provisions in protest situations, stressing that genuine grievances expressed spontaneously should not be unduly criminalized without concrete evidence of overt criminal acts.
Bottom Line:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Quashing of FIR - Mere participation in a spontaneous protest held after a fatal accident, without specific allegations of damage to public property or other overt criminal acts, does not justify prosecution under all invoked penal provisions - Though Court disapproved blocking of public highway, continuation of criminal proceedings was held unwarranted on facts.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 189(2), 189(3), 191(2), 126(2), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Abdul Samad v. State, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998844
