File photo: Madras High Court, Chennai
Photo: Yoga Balaji
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY 3.0
Judgment Intelligence
FIR QuashedP.P. Mohamed & Ors. v. State
Crl.O.P. No. 24299 of 2026
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of Decision
- 31 August 2026
- Bench
- Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 189(2), 126(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 528
Final Outcome
Petition allowed; STC No. 201 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, quashed as against the petitioners; miscellaneous petitions closed (para 9).
Source Madras High Court, decided 31.08.2026
Key holdings
- An assembly is unlawful only if its common object falls within the statutory categories (paras 7-8).
- Raising slogans without criminal force, mischief or any offence does not make an assembly unlawful (para 8).
- The charge sheet disclosed no ingredients of Section 126(2) BNS (para 8).
- Where the prosecution material discloses no offence, a trial would be a futile ordeal; Bhajan Lal applied (para 6).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
According to the prosecution, on 05.10.2025 at about 6 p.m. the petitioners gathered unlawfully and raised slogans in support of the Palestinian people and against the genocide being perpetrated against them (para 2). The Gudalur police registered Crime No. 269 of 2025 under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of the BNS, filed a final report, and the Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, took cognizance as STC No. 201 of 2026 (paras 2, 4). The fourteen petitioners sought to quash the case under Section 528 BNSS, saying they had committed no offence (paras 1, 3).
Court's Findings
The Court noted that while the power to quash must be used sparingly, where the material collected by the prosecution, taken as a whole, discloses no offence, making the accused face trial would be a futile ordeal; it relied on the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (para 6). It set out the definition of unlawful assembly, under which five or more persons form one only if their common object is to overawe the government or a public servant by criminal force, resist the law, commit mischief, trespass or another offence, take property by criminal force, or compel a person by criminal force (para 7). An assembly is unlawful only when it fits one of those categories (para 8). Here the accused had shown no criminal force, committed no mischief or offence, and tried to take no property or right of others; nor did the charge sheet contain the ingredients of Section 126(2) (para 8).
Legal Principle
A gathering that raises slogans is an unlawful assembly only if its common object falls within the statutory categories, such as overawing by criminal force or committing an offence. Where the charge sheet shows none of them, nor the ingredients of wrongful restraint, the prosecution can be quashed (paras 6-8).
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Lists the categories in which criminal proceedings may be quashed, including where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence.