Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against SSC Aspirant, Says Mere Presence at Protest Is Not Enough for Prosecution

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against a Staff Selection Commission (SSC) aspirant booked in connection with a protest at Ramlila Maidan in August 2025. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that merely participating in a demonstration does not establish a common intention to disobey police orders or obstruct police personnel. The Court observed that prosecution cannot continue solely because a person was present among protesters, without material indicating their involvement in the alleged offence.

Case Details

• Court: Delhi High Court
• Judge: Justice Sanjeev Narula
• Matter: Petition seeking quashing of an FIR against an SSC aspirant
• Relevant Provision: Section 223(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• Order Date: October 13, 2026

Gist of the Case

The case arose from a protest held at Ramlila Maidan in August 2025 by SSC aspirants over alleged irregularities in the conduct of examinations. The police alleged that some protesters continued occupying the ground after the permitted time had expired and disobeyed prohibitory orders. The petitioner was booked in connection with the alleged disobedience.

Facts of the Case

According to the prosecution, some organisers refused to call off the demonstration after the permitted time had expired and encouraged protesters to remain at the venue until their demands were met. The police subsequently registered an FIR alleging that some protesters violated prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by continuing to occupy the ground.

The prosecution also alleged that some protesters pushed and clashed with police personnel. However, the Court noted that neither the FIR nor the status report attributed any specific criminal act to the petitioner.

Arguments in the Case

The petitioner challenged the continuation of the criminal proceedings, contending that his mere presence at the protest could not establish his involvement in the alleged offence.

The Court examined whether there was material showing that the petitioner knowingly participated in the alleged disobedience or shared a common intention to commit an offence. It found no material indicating such knowledge or common intention on his part.

High Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court held that mere participation in a demonstration does not, by itself, establish a common intention to disobey lawful directions or obstruct police personnel. The Court observed that the material on record disclosed no basis for attributing such an intention to the petitioner.

The Bench further held that criminal proceedings could not be sustained merely on account of the petitioner’s presence among the protesters, in the absence of material showing his knowing participation in the alleged disobedience or a common intention to commit the offence.

The Court observed that continuing the proceedings in these circumstances would serve no worthwhile purpose. It accordingly quashed the FIR against the SSC aspirant.