ORDER : The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as “the Code”), has been maintained by the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R No. 0493, dated 15.10.2018, under Sections 341 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called as “IPC”), registered in Police Station Una Sadar, District Una, H.P. 2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that a boy namely Sumit, who was a local resident of Raipur, was missing since September, 2018 and in the month of October, 2018, he was found hanged on a tree. As per the local people of the area, the deceased was murdered and in order to demand fair and honest investigation of mysterious murder of the deceased, the people of the area gathered and portrayed their distress in a peaceful manner. There was no violence and damage to the public property. However, the traffic police in order to evacuate the local residents from the place of incident, lodged F.I.R No. 0493, dated 15.10.2018, under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC, against some persons gathered there and later on name of the petitioner was also incorporated in the FIR without there being any guilt of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the police investigation, the people of the area were taking out a procession and blocking the road in order to demand a fair investigation with respect to the death of a boy, who was found hanged on a tree and they were only pressurizing the authorities. He has further argued that as per the police investigation it was only a procession and there was no assembly, as people were not standing in a place. He has argued that since there was no assembly and it was a simple procession and no hindrance to any traffic or movement of the people was caused, no case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 143 and 341 of IPC and furthermore, name of the petitioner was not incorporated in the FIR initially. He has further argued that there is nothing on record to suggest that any person was wrongfully restraint to go to a direction where he wanted to go and thus, the present proceedings against the petitioner are abuse of the process of law. He has further argued that there is nothing on record to suggest that any person was wrongfully restraint to go to a direction where he wanted to go and thus, the present proceedings against the petitioner are abuse of the process of law. He has argued that right to procession is recognized as a fundamental right by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and prayed that FIR against the petitioner is required to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has argued that the procession was not peaceful and National Highway remained blocked for about 23 hours and the crowd did not let anyone move. He has further argued that initially the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR, as there was big crowd and it was difficult to identify each and every person, however, later on when footages of the spot were seen, names of persons, including the petitioner were incorporated in the FIR and since the petitioner, alongwith other persons has committed an offence under Sections 143 & 341 IPC, he is also liable to be punished. 5. In rebuttal, Mr. Sarthak Mehta, has argued that the petitioner is an innocent person and there is nothing against him and even if the record is taken into consideration in totality, no case is made out against the petitioner, so FIR, qua the petitioner, may be quashed. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, I have gone through the records in detail. 7. Section 143 of IPC provides punishment for being a member of unlawful assembly and unlawful assembly is defined in Section 142 IPC, which reads as under: “142. Being member of unlawful assembly. Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.” 8. Fact remains that an assembly should be unlawful, however, in the instant case it was a procession not an assembly, which was being taken out by the public to put the machinery into motion, so that investigation with regard to death of the deceased could be done properly and it was not given colour of hanging or suicide. Fact remains that an assembly should be unlawful, however, in the instant case it was a procession not an assembly, which was being taken out by the public to put the machinery into motion, so that investigation with regard to death of the deceased could be done properly and it was not given colour of hanging or suicide. So, in these circumstances, assembly, of which, the petitioner was a member, cannot be said to be an unlawful assembly. 9. Now coming to Section 341 of IPC, which reads as under: “341. Punishment for wrongful restraint. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extent to one month, or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees, or with both.” However, there is nothing on record to show that any person was wrongfully restraint. The only allegation is that the road remained blocked. The contents of FIR neither show who was wrongfully restraint by the petitioner, nor liability of the petitioner in confining any person, rather it was the procession as per the prosecution itself. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident, In RE, (2012) 5 SCC, has held that right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitations are the basic features of a democratic system. The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the Government on any subject of social or national importance. 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has dealt with the similar issue in Cr. MMO No. 339 of 2020, titled Anu Tuli Azta Vs. State of H.P., decided on 22.02.2021, and in paras 13 & 14, has observed as under: “13. Mere presence at the spot in the demonstration would not invite criminal act in the facts and nature of allegations made in the present FIR. 14. Holding peaceful processions, raising slogans, would not be and cannot be an offence under India’s Constitution.” 12. State of H.P., decided on 22.02.2021, and in paras 13 & 14, has observed as under: “13. Mere presence at the spot in the demonstration would not invite criminal act in the facts and nature of allegations made in the present FIR. 14. Holding peaceful processions, raising slogans, would not be and cannot be an offence under India’s Constitution.” 12. So, in view of the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this High Court; and after going through the entire records, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is nothing against the petitioner to conclude that he was in any way responsible for causing wrongful restraint to any person or he was a member of unlawful assembly or he had intentionally joined that assembly. Mere presence of the petitioner at the spot, does not involve commission of any of the offences against him. In these circumstances, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner are required to be quashed, as no case is made out against him even after going through the entire records and interest of justice would be met in case the FIR, qua the petitioner, is quashed. 13. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and F.I.R No. 0493, dated 15.10.2018, under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC, registered in Police Station Una Sadar, District Una, qua the petitioner, alongwith consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, is ordered to be quashed. 14. The petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.