Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by Manchu Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Vardhan Babu, quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against them for participating in a student rally. The Court ruled that the allegations did not constitute any offence under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. It held that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law and stated that “no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal prosecution.”
Facts
The case arose from a student rally conducted on 22 March 2019 by the appellants — Manchu Mohan Babu, Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, and his son — in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. The rally aimed to protest the state government’s failure to grant student fee reimbursements. According to the State, the rally, which allegedly obstructed traffic and caused public inconvenience, was held in violation of the prohibitory orders issued under Section 30 of the Police Act, which were in effect due to the Model Code of Conduct ahead of general elections. An FIR was registered and chargesheet filed against the appellants.
Issues
Whether the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet, even if taken at face value, disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence justifying continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that their actions were a peaceful exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. They contended that the rally and dharna caused no public obstruction or nuisance and were held without arms or violence. They further argued that as private individuals, the Model Code of Conduct was not applicable to them. It was emphasized that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and failed the well-established ‘Bhajan Lal’ test, as no ingredients of the alleged offences were present.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the rally was unauthorized and violated prohibitory orders. It claimed the demonstration blocked traffic and caused public nuisance and inconvenience. The State maintained that the right to assemble and protest is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially during the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the scope of Section 482 of the CrPC and reiterated that inherent powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Referring to Section 290 (public nuisance), Section 341 (wrongful restraint), Section 171F (undue influence at elections), and Section 34 IPC (common intention), as well as Section 34 of the Police Act (offences on roads), the Court emphasized that the key ingredients of each offence must be present in the allegations to justify prosecution.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
The Court relied heavily on the seven-category framework from Bhajan Lal, particularly clauses (1) to (3) of paragraph 102, where FIRs may be quashed if the allegations do not disclose any offence or are absurd on their face. - Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
Reaffirmed the Court’s ability to exercise jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and protect fundamental rights. - Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Reinforced that criminal law should not be used for oblique motives and that FIRs must be quashed when the chances of conviction are bleak and the process serves no useful purpose.
These cases were crucial in holding that continuation of proceedings would be unjust.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the FIR and chargesheet did not allege any act that satisfied the essential ingredients of the invoked offences. It found no material suggesting obstruction of roads, public annoyance, undue electoral influence, or wrongful restraint. Even taking the allegations at face value, there was no indication that the appellants’ conduct caused any of the harms contemplated by the relevant provisions.
The Court observed:
“Taking the allegations in the FIR and the chargesheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offences… are entirely absent.”
The Supreme Court found the High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC to be legally untenable and “on a completely misconceived basis.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment, allowed the appeals, and quashed the FIR No. 102 of 2019 and criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1015 of 2021. It held that none of the alleged offences were made out against the appellants and reiterated the need for courts to protect citizens’ constitutional rights, particularly the right to peaceful protest.
Implications
This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting constitutional freedoms and preventing misuse of criminal law to stifle dissent. It underscores that FIRs and prosecutions must not be sustained when fundamental rights are exercised within permissible limits and without causing public harm. The ruling is a significant precedent for activists, students, and educational institutions engaging in peaceful protest.
Cases Referred and Their Role
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: Provided the legal framework for quashing FIRs under Section 482 CrPC.
- Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate: Emphasized that criminal law should not be used to harass or oppress.
- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre: Stressed that courts must intervene when a trial would serve no useful purpose.
FAQs
1. What is the ‘Bhajan Lal test’ and how was it applied here?
The ‘Bhajan Lal test’ lays down seven situations where criminal proceedings may be quashed. In this case, the Supreme Court applied clauses (1)-(3) to hold that no prima facie offence was made out.
2. Can peaceful protests be criminalised under the Indian Penal Code?
Not unless the protest leads to obstruction, nuisance, or violence. The Supreme Court clarified that peaceful, unarmed rallies that do not harm public order are protected under fundamental rights.
3. Why did the Supreme Court quash the FIR despite violation of prohibitory orders?
The Court held that mere violation without resulting in the essential ingredients of the alleged offences cannot justify a criminal trial, especially when no harm to public order was shown.
