LexMANCHU MOHAN BABU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1969 : 2025 INSC 916 Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3298 of 2025) 31 July 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants for conducting rally and dharna against the State Government, allegedly causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk to passengers, punishable u/ss.290, 341 and 171F r/w s.34 IPC and s.34 of the Police Act, 1861, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.290, 341, 171F r/w.34 – Police Act, 1861 – s.34 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Causing obstruction to free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk to passengers – Appellants-chairman of educational institutions and his son, along with others conducted rally and dharna against the then State Government for not granting student fee reimbursements, allegedly causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk to passengers – This was done after Model Code of Conduct came into force restricting public meetings, dharnas, rallies and road shows without prior permission – FIR registered and chargesheet filed – Appellants sought quashing of the criminal proceedings – High Court dismissed the petition – Challenge to: Held: Taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet, the crucial ingredients of the offences u/ss.290, 341, 171F r/w.34 IPC and s.34 of the Police Act entirely absent – Reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet neither discloses any act committed or * Author 1970 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports illegal commission that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or interference with their public rights, nor do they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person – Further no material to suggest that there was any undue influence at elections, impersonation at elections or any act committed with the intention to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights – Also do not suggest that any act was committed on a road or in an open place within the limits of a town that caused inconvenience, annoyance or posed a risk of danger or damage to the public, and do not disclose any of the specified actions u/s.34 of the Police Act – Thus, cannot be concluded that the appellants, while conducting the rally and dharna, engaged in any form of obstruction of the road in a manner that led to the offences alleged – Appellants exercised their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully – Thus, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution – High Court erred in holding that there were specific allegations against the appellants and there were no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 18, 19] Case Law Cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : (1998) 5 SCC 749; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988] 2 SCR 930 : (1988) 1 SCC 692 – held applicable. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Police Act, 1861. List of Keywords Quashing of criminal proceedings; Raised slogans against government; Rally; Dharna; Common injury, danger, annoyance to public; Undue influence at election; Freedom of speech and expression; Assemble peacefully; Causing obstruction to free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk to passengers; Model Code of Conduct; Restricting public meetings, dharnas, rallies and road shows without prior permission. [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1971 Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3298 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2025 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP No. 7446 of 2022 With Criminal Appeal No. 3299 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Sr. Adv., Pai Amit, Abhiyudaya Vats, Tathagata Dutta, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Samarth Krishan Luthra. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Nagarathna, J. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement dated 02.01.2025 passed by the H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.