Permission for Peaceful Protest Does Not Shield Alleged Violence from Investigation

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of an FIR arising from a protest over alleged custodial misconduct. The FIR alleged that a large gathering became violent, damaged property, forcibly entered a police station and assaulted police personnel. The Court held that permission for a peaceful rally did not immunise participants from alleged criminal acts, and that disputed questions about individual roles, common object, mala fides and the applicability of penal provisions required investigation. The allegations of custodial misconduct were treated as a distinct matter for the competent authorities. (Paras 6–12)

Key Proposition: Permission to hold a peaceful demonstration does not by itself justify quashing an FIR where, read as a whole, it alleges cognizable acts of violence, assault and property damage that require investigation.

• BNSS, 2023 – Section 528 – Quashing of FIR – Whether allegations of violence during a permitted protest warrant termination of proceedings at inception – Held, no; investigation must proceed. (Paras 6–12)
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Unlawful assembly and related offences – Common object and individual role – Whether absence of a specific overt act against each petitioner is decisive at the threshold – Held, not on the facts recorded. (Paras 6–11)
• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Applicability of invoked provisions – Held, statutory ingredients must be assessed against investigation material. (Paras 1, 10–12)

Background / Synopsis :

• The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS of FIR/Crime No. 291/2026 registered at Police Station Kirnapur, District Balaghat.
• The dispute followed the arrest of Savitri Chaudhary in a separate theft case in August/September 2026. The petitioners alleged procedural violations and custodial assault; they relied on a Magistrate’s order, medical documents, representations and subsequent reports.
• The Marar Mali Samaj obtained permission for a rally and sit-in protest on 15 September 2026. The petitioners claimed the protest was peaceful and that police action and the FIR were retaliatory.
• The FIR alleged that a large crowd moved towards the police station with stones, bricks, rods and sticks; damaged barricades and the entrance gate; entered the premises; assaulted police personnel; damaged property and obstructed public roads.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the FIR should be quashed at the threshold on the grounds that the protest was permitted and allegedly peaceful, the allegations were general, and the FIR was a counterblast.
• Whether disputes about individual participation, common object, custodial misconduct and the statutory ingredients of the invoked offences could be determined in a quashing petition before investigation.

Submissions Of Parties :

Petitioner / Appellant:

• The petitioners alleged that Savitri Chaudhary had been unlawfully arrested and subjected to custodial mistreatment, and that the protest was organised in response to that grievance.
• They contended that the protest concluded peacefully, the FIR was a counterblast, the allegations were general and omnibus, and no specific overt act was attributed to each petitioner.
• They argued that the ingredients of serious offences, including attempt to murder and offences under the SC/ST Act, were not disclosed.

Respondent / State:

• The State argued that the FIR disclosed serious cognizable offences arising from an unlawful assembly that allegedly became violent.
• The State relied on allegations of forcible entry into the police station, assault on police personnel, stone pelting, damage to public and private property, and obstruction of roads.
• The State submitted that the defence concerning the arrest and alleged mistreatment of Savitri Chaudhary could not itself justify quashing the separate FIR.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

Re: Allegations in the FIR and permitted protest

• Read as a whole, the FIR alleged a gathering of approximately 2,000–2,500 persons and a group of approximately 400–500 persons proceeding towards the police station with objects capable of being used as weapons.
• The Court held that these allegations could not, at the preliminary stage, be characterised as merely peaceful participation in a permitted demonstration.
• Held: Permission for a peaceful rally does not confer immunity for alleged violence, assault or property damage. (Paras 6–7)

Re: Individual role, common object and disputed facts

• The Court held that whether a petitioner participated in the alleged acts, shared the assembly’s common object or was otherwise liable had to be assessed in light of the investigation material.
• The absence of a specific overt act attributed to each petitioner did not, on the facts, require quashing of the entire FIR.
• Held: The Court would not conduct a detailed evidentiary assessment or decide disputed facts at this stage. (Paras 7, 10–11)

Re: Alleged custodial misconduct and mala fides

• The Court described the allegations of custodial mistreatment as serious and stated they should be dealt with by competent authorities according to law.
• It treated the alleged custodial misconduct and the alleged violence during the protest as distinct matters. Alleged mala fides or a counterblast did not, by themselves, warrant quashing in the presence of specific cognizable allegations.
• Held: No sufficient ground for quashing the FIR was made out. (Paras 8–12)

Notable Observations: None quoted.

Decision & Directions :

• The petition under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed.
• The Court did not finally determine whether the petitioners committed the alleged offences or whether each invoked statutory provision would ultimately apply; those questions were left to be assessed against the investigation material.

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528: inherent power invoked to seek quashing of the FIR.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 132, 125, 333, 109(1), 115(2), 296(b), 121(1) and 324(4): provisions invoked in the FIR as recorded in the order.
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 325A, 325, 31DHA and 31DA, as reproduced in the order.
• Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3: provision invoked in the FIR.
• The order refers generally to categories recognised by the Supreme Court for quashing proceedings, but no case name or citation is stated in the extracted judgment text.