Criminal Proceedings Over Student Fee Rally Are Quashed; Court Rules Ingredients of Charged Offences Not Made Out

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard appeals by two petitioners challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings arising from a rally and dharna held during the 2019 election period. The appeals questioned whether offences under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 were made out on the face of the FIR and chargesheet.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order and quashed FIR No.102 of 2019 and the criminal complaint C.C. No.1015 of 2021. The Supreme Court held that, taking the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet at face value, “the crucial ingredients of the offences … are entirely absent” and that the appellants were exercising their rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. The Court, in its reasoning, 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. 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. 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.” The Court further noted that the High Court should have invoked Section 482 CrPC to “prevent abuse of the court’s process.”

Background The appeals arose from an FIR lodged after a rally and dharna held on 22 March 2019 on the Tirupati–Madanapalli Road, protesting non-payment of student fee reimbursements. The Model Code of Conduct and a prohibitory order under Section 30 of the Police Act had been in force during the poll period. The State alleged that the rally and dharna obstructed traffic and caused inconvenience and risk to passengers; the complaint led to registration of FIR No.102 of 2019 and a subsequent chargesheet prosecuting the appellants and others under Sections 290, 341, 171F read with 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act.

The appellants—one of whom was the chairman of an educational institution and the other his son—moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition on 02 January 2025, finding specific allegations against the appellants and refusing to interfere. The appellants then obtained leave and approached the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the actions were peaceful exercise of fundamental rights and that the Bhajan Lal parameters should have been applied to quash proceedings which did not prima facie disclose offences. The State argued that reasonable restrictions applied and the rally caused public nuisance. The Supreme Court reviewed precedent including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and applied the test whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie established the charged offences. Finding that the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and allowed the appeals. The impugned High Court order was set aside and the FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3298 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5247 of 2025) and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3299 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8623 of 2025); Citation: 2025 INSC 916 Case Title: Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another; Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate