NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case against Telugu actor Manchu Mohan Babu and his son for holding a rally and dharna in violation of Model Code of Conduct during 2019 General Elections, saying they were only exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Vishwanathan
allowed appeals filed by the actor and his son against the High Court's judgment of January 2, 2025 which dismissed their applications filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
"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," the bench said.
Mohan Babu and his son Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu along with others were accused of holding a dharna at Tirupati-Madanapalli Road, and raising slogans against the then Andhra Pradesh government for not granting student fee reimbursements on March 22, 2019.
After going through the facts of the matter, the court held it is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue as none of the offences alleged was made in the case.
"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 bench said.
Mohan Babu was the Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions.
The court found a reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet neither disclosed 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, the bench held, 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.
The FIR and the charge sheet 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, the bench pointed out.
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.
