Summary
Criminal proceedings against the chairman of an educational institution and his son for holding a rally and dharna against non-reimbursement of student fees during the Model Code of Conduct period were quashed. Taking the FIR and chargesheet at face value, the ingredients of Sections 290, 341 and 171F read with Section 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 were entirely absent, and the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1015 of 2021 for offences under Sections 290, 341 and 171F read with Section 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 ought to be quashed.
- Whether, taking the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet as they stand, the ingredients of the offences alleged were made out against participants in a peaceful rally and dharna.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applying the Bhajan Lal parameters (paragraph 102, sub-paras (1) to (3)) and Pepsi Foods, the Court held that the High Court should have exercised its inherent power to prevent abuse of process once the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed no offence; its dismissal of the petition on the footing that there were specific allegations was misconceived. (¶¶ 13, 14, 19, 20, 21)
- Section 290, Indian Penal Code, 1860Public nuisance not otherwise punishable: the FIR and chargesheet disclosed no act causing common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or any section of it, or interference with public rights, so the ingredient was absent. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19)
- Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860Wrongful restraint: the material disclosed no voluntary obstruction of any person preventing them from proceeding in a direction in which they had a right to proceed. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19)
- Section 171F, Indian Penal Code, 1860Undue influence or personation at an election: nothing in the FIR or chargesheet suggested undue influence, impersonation at an election or any act intended to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19)
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Common intention was invoked with the substantive offences; since no substantive offence was disclosed, nothing survived for Section 34 to operate on. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19)
- Section 34, Police Act, 1861The section penalises eight specified acts on roads or open places in a town causing obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk or danger; the allegations did not disclose any of the eight specified actions or any act on a road posing such risk to the public. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19)
Held
- Under the Bhajan Lal parameters, as affirmed in Pepsi Foods, criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected do not disclose the commission of any offence. (¶¶ 13, 14, 20)
- Following Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia, the criminal process cannot be used for an oblique purpose; at the stage of quashing, the test is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence, and cases where the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution should be quashed. (¶ 15)
- On a combined reading of the FIR and chargesheet, the crucial ingredients of Sections 290, 341 and 171F read with Section 34 IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861 were entirely absent: no common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, no voluntary obstruction of any person, no undue influence or personation at an election, and none of the eight acts specified in Section 34 of the Police Act. The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably, so no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The High Court erred in concluding that there were specific allegations and no tenable grounds to quash, and dismissed the Section 482 CrPC application on a completely misconceived basis; it ought to have exercised that power to prevent abuse of the court's process. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment dated 02.01.2025 set aside; the application under Section 482 CrPC stands allowed; FIR No.102 of 2019 of Police Station Chandragiri, District Tirupati, and the proceedings in C.C. No.1015 of 2021 quashed.