Case Title – Farhana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case No. – SLP(Crl.) No(s). 437 of 2023
Dated on – 19th February, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the Case –
The appellants, Farhana and Sadarul Islam, filed appeals against the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had dismissed their writ petitions seeking to quash Case Crime No. 424 of 2022. This FIR, registered at Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, charged the appellants under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act). The FIR alleged that the appellants were members of a gang led by Puskal Parag Dubey and were involved in multiple criminal cases, including Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 and Crime Case No. 173 of 2019, both involving charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC, 1860.
Legal Provisions –
- Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Contentions of the Appellant –
The appellants, Farhana and Sadarul Islam, contended that the prosecution under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) was unwarranted and should be quashed. They argued that, at the time the FIR was registered, only one case was pending against them, which did not justify invoking the Gangsters Act. Moreover, they highlighted that both predicate criminal cases—Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 and Crime Case No. 190 of 2021—had been quashed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The former case, involving charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against both appellants, was quashed on March 3, 2023, while the latter case against Sadarul Islam was quashed on October 18, 2023. The appellants asserted that with the quashing of these cases, there were no ongoing prosecutions for any offenses under the anti-social activities defined in Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act. Consequently, they argued that the foundation for their prosecution under the Gangsters Act was invalidated, rendering the continued proceedings an abuse of the process of the Court. They urged the Supreme Court to quash the FIR and the associated criminal proceedings, as the essential criteria for invoking the Gangsters Act were no longer met.
Contentions of the Respondent –
The respondents, representing the State, contended that the prosecution under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) was valid and justified. They argued that, at the time of the FIR’s registration, the appellants were involved in multiple criminal cases involving anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act. Specifically, the appellants were implicated in Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 and Crime Case No. 173 of 2019, which included charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, among others. The respondents emphasized that the decision in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh established that prosecution under the Gangsters Act could be initiated even if the accused were involved in a single offense. They maintained that, given the appellants’ alleged criminal activities at the time the FIR was filed, the invocation of the Gangsters Act was appropriate. The subsequent quashing of the predicate offenses did not negate the fact that the FIR was registered based on valid grounds. Furthermore, the respondents argued that the quashing of the criminal cases after the FIR’s registration did not invalidate the initiation of proceedings under the Gangsters Act. They asserted that the ongoing prosecution was in line with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, and thus, the appeals should be dismissed, and the FIR and related proceedings should be upheld.
Court Analysis and Judgement –
The Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) in light of the appellants’ contention and the respondents’ arguments. The Court scrutinized Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, which defines a “gang” and outlines the nature of anti-social activities covered under the Act. It was noted that the prosecution’s case hinged on the appellants’ involvement in offenses under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court observed that at the time of the FIR’s registration, the appellants were implicated in multiple criminal cases fitting the definition of anti-social activities under the Act. However, the Court acknowledged that both predicate offenses—Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 and Crime Case No. 190 of 2021—had been quashed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. With the quashing of these cases, the Court found no ongoing prosecution against the appellants for any offenses under the specified chapters of the IPC. The Supreme Court concluded that the foundation for the appellants’ prosecution under the Gangsters Act had been invalidated. Consequently, continuing the criminal proceedings under the Act constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court, therefore, quashed the impugned orders of the High Court dated November 14, 2022, and December 6, 2022, and set aside the FIR being Crime Case No. 424 of 2022 registered at Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. All proceedings initiated under this FIR were also quashed. The appeals were allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Anurag Das
