The ruling came while quashing an FIR against three persons accused of being part of a mob that allegedly indulged in rioting and assaulted teachers during a protest over allegations of sexual assault against a school teacher. An FIR was subsequently registered against several persons, including the present petitioners. Liability would shift to the bystander only when he shared the common object with the unlawful assembly." It noted that while proof of an overt act is not always necessary, the prosecution must establish that the accused knew of or shared the unlawful assembly's common object. Accordingly, holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.