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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.