"Political Activists Have A Right To Protest Against Administration": Allahabad HC Quashes Case Against UP Minister

"In a democracy based on adult franchise, the political activist and other public-spirited persons would have right of protest against the Administration by staging Dharana etc. against perceived discrimination/atrocities, inaction, omission or commission of the State Authorities," the Allahabad High Court observed as it quashed a 2013 criminal case filed against the sitting minister in Uttar Pradesh Government and BJP MLA, Dinesh Pratap Singh. 

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also took into account the fact that the state government has already granted permission to withdraw from prosecution and pursuant to which application under Section 321 CrPC has already been filed before the court where the case is pending since 2013.

The case in brief

As per the allegation of the FIR, the applicant [Dinesh Pratap Singh, Minister of State (Independent Charge)] along with 40-50 persons had blocked Raibareli-Sultanpur Road to demand a fair and impartial investigation into a case in which the name of the local MLA was also involved.

However, since the Police had not named the said MLA in the FIR, therefore, being a public figure, the applicant, in an attempt to put pressure on the administration for a fair investigation, staged the protest. Thereafter, he was booked under Sections 141, 145, 283, and 341 IPC.

Before the Court, his counsel argued that the charge sheet filed against Singh itself would not disclose that he or any other person, accompanying him at the protest side, had indulged in any criminal activity.

It was also submitted that if in a democracy the people's right to protest, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, is throttled/muzzled the dissent is compressed/suppressed, it would not be in the interest of healthy democracy.

It was further submitted that the State Government has already granted permission to withdraw from prosecution in the present case and pursuant to the permission granted by the State Government, an application under Section 321 CrPC had been filed by the Public Prosecutor, however, no decision had yet been taken on the said application.

Therefore, it was prayed to quash the entire proceedings against the applicant so that he doesn't have to face further harassment as no case is made out against him.

High Court's observations

Taking into account the facts, circumstances, and arguments of the counsels, the Court, at the outset noted that Singh, along with his supporters, had staged a protest on Raebareli-Sultanpur Road to put pressure on the State Authorities, however, no offence was committed by him or other co-accused.

Consequently, looking at the triviality of the matter, which has remained pending before the trial Court since 2013, particularly, taking into consideration the permission granted by the State Government to withdraw from prosecution and pursuant to which application under Section 321 CrPC has already been filed, the Court found that the continuation of the impugned proceedings would be nothing but a gross abuse of process of the Court.

Therefore, the application was allowed and impugned proceedings were quashed.

Case title - Dinesh Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Lko. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7859 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 521

Click Here To Read/Download Order