The Bombay High Court has quashed a criminal case against a 26-year-old man who was booked for participating in a protest over deteriorating road conditions in Maharashtra’s Chandrapur district, observing that peaceful public demonstrations cannot be treated as criminal acts without evidence of unlawful conduct.
Justice MW Chandwani, sitting at the Nagpur Bench, ruled that the constitutional right to assemble peacefully must not be blurred with the use of criminal prosecution against citizens raising genuine civic concerns.
“If the lines between the constitutional right to protest and the unleashing of penal prosecutions are allowed to be blurred, it would be a sad day for democracy,” the Court observed in its October 29 order.
The case arose from an incident on January 21, when a pickup vehicle overturned after hitting an electricity pole near Mauza Nandgaon, leaving several passengers injured.
The accident prompted local residents to gather at the spot and demand accountability from Public Works Department (PWD) officials and the contractor responsible for the road.
During the protest, some residents allegedly stretched a rope across the road. Police subsequently registered an FIR against Nishkarsh Kiran Nimgade, accusing him of wrongful restraint and unlawful assembly under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Police failed to establish that traffic was actually obstructed
Examining the charge-sheet and the material collected during the investigation, the High Court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case.
Justice Chandwani noted that the investigating agency had not recorded statements from commuters or other road users to establish that anyone had actually been prevented from passing through the road.
The Court also pointed out that Nimgade’s name emerged only after the police had dispersed the gathering.
It said that the mere presence of a large number of people at the accident site, demanding action against government officials and the road contractor, could not automatically transform the gathering into an unlawful assembly.
The prosecution, therefore, could not rely solely on the size of the crowd or the fact that residents had assembled to protest to establish criminal liability.
Constitutional protection for peaceful demonstrations
The High Court also referred to Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
The Bench emphasised that criminal proceedings should not become a means of discouraging non-violent demonstrations, particularly when citizens assemble to raise concerns about public infrastructure and administrative accountability.
After assessing the allegations and the available evidence, Justice Chandwani concluded that continuing the prosecution against Nimgade would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
“The launch of criminal prosecution against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court,” the order stated.
The High Court accordingly exercised its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash the FIR and the accompanying charge-sheet.
Advocates Purushottam Patil, NA Waghmare, Vinay Rathi and Yash Ghodichor appeared for Nimgade, while Additional Public Prosecutor HD Futane represented the State.