MANCHU MOHAN BABUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER

                 [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 High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati whereby
     the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants herein
     in Criminal Petition No.7446 of 2022 under Section 482 of the Code
     of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) and refused to quash
     C.C. No.1015 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional
     Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for the offences punishable under Sections
     290, 341 and 171F read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
     1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861, the
     appellants are before this Court.
3.   The appellant Manchu Mohan Babu in Criminal Appeal arising out
     of SLP (Crl.) No.5247 of 2025 is the Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan
     Educational Institutions and the appellant Manchu Vishnu Vardhan
     Babu in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8623 of 2025
     is the son of Manchu Mohan Babu (hereinafter, “the appellants”).
1972                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     3.1 Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the General
         Elections for the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly
         in Andhra Pradesh were scheduled on 11.04.2019 and as a
         consequence, the Model Code of Conduct came into force on
         10.03.2019 restricting public meetings, dharnas, rallies and road
         shows without prior permission from the Competent Authority
         until the end of the electoral process. On 13.03.2019, the Sub
         Divisional Police Officer, Tirupati West issued Prohibitory orders
         under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 restricting such public
         gatherings.
4.   It is the case of the respondent-State that on 22.03.2019 at about
     8:30 AM, the appellants and some others comprising of staff and
     students congregated together to conduct a rally along the Tirupati-
     Madanapalli Road, by raising slogans against the-then Government
     of Andhra Pradesh for not granting student fee reimbursements.
     They further are described to have raised slogans and conducted a
     dharna on the same day from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM.
5.   The above acts are alleged to have caused obstruction to the free
     flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk to passengers.
6.   On receipt of the said information about the rally and dharna, the
     Mandal Parishad Development Officer and In-charge of the Model
     Code of Conduct Team-IV, Chandragiri Assembly Constituency
     arrived at the spot, videographed the rally and dharna and registered
     a written complaint with the police. Consequently, an FIR bearing
     No. 102 of 2019 came to be registered on 22.03.2019 against the
     aforesaid appellants and other participants in the rally and dharna
     at the Chandragiri Police Station, District – Tirupati Urban.
7.   Statements of certain witnesses having been recorded, a chargesheet
     came to be filed on 03.06.2020 against the appellants in C.C. No.
     1015/2021.
8.   Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings, the appellants
     approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati by filing
     Criminal Petition No.7446 of 2022 seeking quashing of the criminal
     proceedings in C.C. No.1015 of 2021. Vide impugned order dated
     02.01.2025, the High Court dismissed the said petition. The High
     Court noted that there are specific allegations leveled against the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1973

      Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another


     appellants in the commission of the alleged offences and observed
     that there were no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence
     the instant appeal.
9.   We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned
     counsel for the respondent-State.
10. Sri Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, learned senior counsel for the appellants
    submitted that the appellants were merely exercising their fundamental
    rights of freedom of speech and expression and that the rally and
    dharna in question did not cause any form of obstruction to the general
    public. That the rally and dharna were both conducted peaceably and
    without arms. It was further contended that the Model Code of Conduct
    would not govern the appellants as they are private citizens. That the
    criminal proceedings initiated are nothing but an abuse of the process
    of law to scuttle the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights
    of the appellants. That the High Court has not appropriately applied
    the ‘Bhajan Lal test’ to determine if the criminal proceedings are to
    be quashed. That no ingredients of the alleged offences have been
    made out. Therefore, it was argued that this Court may set-aside the
    impugned order dated 02.01.2025 and quash the criminal proceedings
    pending against the appellants herein in C.C. No. 1015 of 2021.
     10.1 Per contra, Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the
          respondent-state contended that the dharna and rally were
          conducted without prior permission of the concerned authorities,
          blocked the traffic for several hours and caused public nuisance
          and inconvenience. That reasonable restrictions may be applied
          to the fundamental right to congregate peaceably.
11. We have given our thorough consideration to the arguments advanced
    at the bar and in light of the material on record.
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having
    gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for
    our consideration is, whether, the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.
    1015 of 2021 against the appellants herein ought to be quashed.
13. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
    (“Bhajan Lal”), this Court formulated the parameters in terms of
    which the powers under Section 482 of CrPC may be exercised.
    While it is not necessary to revisit all those parameters, a few that
1974                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


    are relevant to the present case may be set out. The Court held
    that quashing may be appropriate in the following circumstances:
         “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information
         report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
         face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
         facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
         the accused.
         (2) Where the allegations in the first information report
         and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
         disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
         by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
         except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
         of Section 155(2).
         (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
         or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
         same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
         make out a case against the accused.”
14. Further, this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial
    Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, while affirming Bhajan Lal has
    held that:
         “22. It is settled that High Court can exercise its power
         of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana
         and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., this Court examined the
         extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution
         and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
         Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court
         either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
         otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down
         certain guidelines where the court will exercise jurisdiction
         under these provisions, it was also stated that these
         guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae
         to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power
         would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
         case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the
         process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
         justice. One of such guidelines is where the allegations
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           1975

      Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another


           made in the first information report or the complaint, even
           if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
           entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
           out a case against the accused. Under Article 227 the
           power of superintendence by the High Court is not only
           of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This
           article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent
           the abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts and
           to see that the stream of administration of justice remains
           clean and pure. The power conferred on the High Court
           under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under
           Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power
           more due care and caution is to be exercised invoking
           these powers. …”
                                                   (Underlining by us)

15. This Court, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao
    Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, reasoned that the criminal
    process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and held that
    while entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at the initial
    stage, the test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations
    prima facie establish the offence. This Court also concluded that
    the court should quash those criminal cases where the chances of
    an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to
    be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution. The aforesaid
    observations squarely apply to this case.
16. On perusal of the FIR of the instant case, it is noted that respondent
    No.2-complainant has filed the FIR invoking Sections 290, 341, 171F
    read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act. For
    ease of reference, the aforesaid Sections are extracted as under:
           IPC:
           “290. Punishment for public nuisance in cases not
           otherwise provided for.— Whoever commits a public
           nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this
           Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to
           two hundred rupees.”
                                       xxx
1976                                                    [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        341.Punishment for wrongful restraint.—Whoever
        wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with
        simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
        month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred
        rupees, or with both”
                                    xxx
        171F. Punishment for undue influence and personation
        at an election: Whoever commits the offence of undue
        influence or personation at an election shall be punished
        with imprisonment of either description for a term which
        may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.
                                    xxx
        34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
        common intention: When a criminal act is done by several
        persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each
        of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
        as if it were done by him alone.”
                                    xxx
        Police Act, 1861
        34. Punishment for certain offences on roads, etc:-
        Powers of police officers -
        Any person who, on any road or in any open place or
        street or thoroughfare within the limits of any town to
        which this section shall be specially extended by the State
        Government, commits any of the following offences, to
        the obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger of
        damage of the residents or passengers shall, on conviction
        before a Magistrate, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty
        rupees, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour
        not exceeding eight days; and it shall be lawful for any
        police officer to take into custody; without a warrant,
        any person who, within his view, commits any of such
        offences namely:-
        First - Slaughtering cattle, Curious riding, etc.- Any
        person who slaughters any cattle or cleans any carcass;
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1977

      Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another


           any person who rides or drives any cattle recklessly or
           furiously, or trains or breaks any horse or other cattle;
           Second - Cruelty to animal - Any person who wantonly
           or cruelly beats, abuses or tortures any animal;
           Third - Obstructing passengers - Any person who keeps
           any cattle or conveyance of any kind standing longer, than is
           required, for loading or unloading or for taking up or setting
           down passengers, or who leaves any conveyance in such a
           manner as to cause inconvenience or danger to the public;
           Fourth - Exposing goods for sale - Any person who
           exposes any goods for sale;
           Fifth - Throwing dirt into street - Any person who throws
           or lays down any dirt, filth, rubbish or any stones or building
           materials, or who constructs any cowshed, stable or the
           like or who causes any offensive matter to run from any
           house, factory, dung-heap or the like;
           Sixth - Being found drunk or riotous - Any person who
           is found drunk or riotous or who is incapable of taking
           care of himself;
           Seventh - Indecent exposure of person - Any person
           who wilfully and indecently exposes his person, or any
           offensive deformity or disease, or commits nuisance by
           easing himself, or by bathing or washing in any tank or
           reservoir, not being a place set apart for the purpose;
           Eighth - Neglect to protect dangerous places - Any
           person who neglects to fence in or duly to protect any
           well, tank or other dangerous place or structure.”
17. In the present case, the issue that had to be addressed by the High
    Court was whether, assuming all the allegations in the FIR and
    chargesheet are correct as they stand, offences punishable under
    the aforesaid sections were made out.
18. 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. Taking the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet
1978                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     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. A reading of the FIR and the charge-
     sheet neither discloses any act committed or illegal commission
     that caused common injury, danger, annoyance to the public or any
     section of the public or interference with their public rights, nor do
     they disclose any voluntary obstruction to a person that prevents
     them from proceeding in any direction that they have a right to
     proceed in. Further they do not disclose any 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. Further they 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 inquiry or damage to the public, and do
     not disclose any of the eight specified actions under Section 34 of
     the Police Act, 1861. 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. Therefore, no
     purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution.
19. As demonstrated in the above analysis, the facts as they stand,
    which are not in dispute, indicate that the ingredients of the offence
    under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 of the IPC and
    Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 are not established. The High
    Court erred in concluding that there were specific allegations against
    the appellants and that there were no tenable grounds to quash the
    proceedings, and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application
    under Section 482 CrPC on a completely misconceived basis. It
    would have been appropriate for the High Court to have exercised
    the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of
    the court’s process.
20. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned facts and judicial
    dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the appellants
    herein is made out, therefore, the judgments of this Court in the
    case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3)
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       1979

         Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another


     of paragraph 102, extracted above and Pepsico, squarely apply to
     the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of
     justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.
21. In the result, we allow these appeals and set-aside the impugned
    judgment. The application under Section 482 of CrPC on the file of the
    High Court shall accordingly stand allowed. The FIR No.102 of 2019
    dated 22.03.2019 registered at Police Station Chandragiri, District
    Tirupati under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with Section 34 of the
    IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 and the proceedings in
    C.C. No.1015 of 2021 shall accordingly stand quashed.


     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain