IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.181 of 2010 Date of decision : December 7, 2010 Subodh Abbhi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. A case has been registered, under Sections 143, 147, 341, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, against several persons, including the petitioner, who allegedly, while agitating against some project, obstructed the movement of traffic, by holding a meeting and sitting in Dharna, on the road. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not take part in any illegal activity, though he did address the gathering about the impact, which the project was likely to have on the environment. 4. Petitioner is specifically named, alongwith some other persons, both in the FIR as also in the statements, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Photostat copies whereof have been made available to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Whether the petitioner committed any offence or not can be known only after trial. FIR and the statements indicate that he and several other persons committed the aforesaid offences. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of, having become infructuous. December 7, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J