SC Quashes Criminal Case Against Actor Mohan Babu and Son, Rules Peaceful Protest Over Fee Dues Not a Crime

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against veteran actor Manchu Mohan Babu and his son, Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu, ruling that a peaceful protest they organized over non-reimbursement of student fees did not constitute the offences alleged against them. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the court's process as the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted as true, failed to establish a prima facie case.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a rally and dharna held on March 22, 2019, on the Tirupati-Madanapalli Road. Manchu Mohan Babu, as the Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, along with his son and others, led a protest involving staff and students. They raised slogans against the then-Government of Andhra Pradesh for its failure to reimburse student fees.

The protest took place while the Model Code of Conduct was in effect for the 2019 General Elections. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the appellants for offences under Sections 290 (public nuisance), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 171F (undue influence at an election) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861.

The appellants approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), but their petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, they filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Court

Appellants' Counsel (Sri Raghavendra S. Srivatsa) argued that the appellants were exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. He contended that the rally was peaceable, did not cause any obstruction, and that the Model Code of Conduct did not apply to them as private citizens. It was submitted that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and failed the test for quashing laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal .

Respondent-State's Counsel (Ms. Prerna Singh) countered that the protest was conducted without prior permission, blocked traffic for several hours, and caused public nuisance, justifying the charges.

Court's Analysis and Application of Legal Principles

The Supreme Court centered its analysis on whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and charge sheet made out the ingredients of the alleged offences. The bench meticulously examined each provision under which the appellants were charged.

The Court referred to the landmark judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) , which outlines the circumstances under which a High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The relevant grounds cited were: 1. Where the allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence. 2. Where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations and evidence do not disclose the commission of any offence.

Applying this test, the Court observed:

"On a combined reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet, we fail to understand as to how the allegations against the appellants herein could be brought within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provisions... The crucial ingredients of the offences under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 are entirely absent."

The judgment explained that the FIR lacked any material to suggest public nuisance, wrongful restraint, undue electoral influence, or any of the specific acts prohibited under Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. The bench emphasized that the appellants were merely exercising their constitutional rights.

"The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution."

Final Verdict

Concluding that the High Court had erred in its judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It held that the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent an abuse of the court's process, as the chances of a conviction were bleak.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed FIR No.102 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings in C.C. No.1015 of 2021 pending before the trial court in Tirupati.