Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Actor Mohan Babu and Son, Rules Protest Did Not Constitute Public Nuisance or Wrongful Restraint

New Delhi: In a significant ruling reinforcing the right to peaceful protest, the Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against veteran Telugu actor Manchu Mohan Babu and his son, Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu. A single-judge bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that the allegations against them, stemming from a 2019 protest rally, did not constitute the offences of public nuisance, wrongful restraint, or undue influence in an election.

The Court set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had refused to quash the FIR, stating that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an "abuse of the process of law" and would not serve the interests of justice.

Background of the Case

The case originates from a protest on March 22, 2019, during the period when the Model Code of Conduct for the General Elections was in effect in Andhra Pradesh. Manchu Mohan Babu, as Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, along with his son and others, organized a rally and dharna on the Tirupati-Madanapalli Road. They were protesting against the then state government's alleged failure to grant student fee reimbursements.

Following a complaint by an election official, an FIR was registered under Sections 290 (public nuisance), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 171F (undue influence at an election) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. The police filed a chargesheet, alleging that the rally obstructed traffic and caused public inconvenience. The appellants challenged these proceedings in the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, but their petition was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments in Court

Appellants' Counsel (Sri Raghavendra S. Srivatsa): The appellants argued that they were merely exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and to assemble peacefully. They contended that the rally was peaceable and did not cause any obstruction. It was further argued that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process intended to stifle their constitutional rights.

Respondent-State's Counsel (Ms. Prerna Singh): The State contended that the rally was held without prior permission, in violation of prohibitory orders. It was argued that the protest blocked traffic for several hours, causing public nuisance and inconvenience, thereby justifying the criminal charges.

The 'Bhajan Lal' Test and the Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court's decision hinged on the principles established in the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) , which lays down guidelines for when a High Court can quash criminal proceedings. The Court focused on the parameter that allows quashing where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence.

Justice Nagarathna meticulously analyzed the ingredients of the offences alleged: -

Section 290 IPC (Public Nuisance): Requires an act causing common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public. -

Section 341 IPC (Wrongful Restraint): Requires voluntary obstruction of a person, preventing them from proceeding in a direction they have a right to. -

Section 171F IPC (Undue Influence at Election): Requires interference with the free exercise of electoral rights. -

Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861: Punishes specific acts on roads, such as slaughtering cattle or indecent exposure, none of which were alleged.

The Court found the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet to be completely lacking in these essential ingredients. In a pivotal observation, the Court stated:

"Taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, 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... Therefore, even if the case of the respondent-State is accepted at its face value, it 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. The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully."

The bench concluded that the High Court had erred by dismissing the petition on a "completely misconceived basis" and that it should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of the court's process.

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings in C.C. No. 1015 of 2021. The judgment serves as a strong reminder that criminal law should not be invoked to suppress peaceful protest and that the ingredients of an offence must be clearly made out from the initial complaint itself for a prosecution to be sustainable. It distinguishes between genuine public nuisance and the exercise of fundamental rights, setting a precedent that will be crucial in similar cases involving protests and public gatherings.