SC quashes criminal case against Actor Mohan Babu, son for student fee dharna
The Supreme Court has on July 31, 2025 quashed a 2019 FIR lodged against actor Manchu Mohan Babu and his son for holding a rally along the Tirupati-Madanapalli Road, and raising slogans against the then Andhra Pradesh government for not granting student fee reimbursements, during the operation of Model Code of Conduct for general elections for State Assembly and Parliament.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan allowed appeals filed by the actor and his son Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu against Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment of January 2, 2025 which dismissed their applications filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
After a careful consideration of the facts and judicial dicta, the court found that none of the offences alleged against the appellants was made out. The bench said it was neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.
"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 bench said.
The court held 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 were not established in the case.
"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 was the Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions. He along with others were alleged to have caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance and risk to passengers during the dharna held on March 22, 2019.
An FIR came to be lodged against the appellants and other participants in the rally and dharna at the Chandragiri Police Station, District – Tirupati Urban. On their plea, the High Court declined to quash the case, holding there are specific allegations leveled against them in the commission of the alleged offence.
Court was told that the rally and dharna were both conducted peaceably and without arms and the Model Code of Conduct would not govern the appellants as they are private citizens. It was further submitted that the proceedings initiated were nothing but an abuse of the process of law to scuttle the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the appellants.
Opposing the plea, the state counsel said the dharna and rally were conducted without prior permission of the concerned authorities, and the appellants blocked the traffic for several hours and caused public nuisance and inconvenience.
Court concluded that it 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. In the case, the court said, the High Court was to examine, assuming all the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet were correct as they stand, offences punishable under those sections were made out.
"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 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," the bench said.
It added that from 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. 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", the bench pointed out.
Case Title: Manchu Mohan Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan
Judgement Date: July 31, 2025