Title: FARHANA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 437 of 2023)
Date of Judgment: FEBRUARY 19, 2024
Coram: Justice J.B Pardiwala, Justice Sandeep Mehta
On Monday, February 19, 2024, Supreme court was tasked with determining the validity of continuing criminal proceedings against the appellants under the Gangsters Act. Central to this analysis was Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, which delineates individuals engaged in anti-social activities punishable under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to establish ongoing prosecutions for offenses falling under this provision to justify proceedings under the Gangsters Act. Crucially, the court observed that the quashing of a prior criminal case undermined the foundation for prosecuting the appellants under the Gangsters Act. With the absence of ongoing prosecutions for offenses covered by Section 2(b)(i), the court concluded that continuing the proceedings against the appellants would constitute an abuse of court process. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the appellants, quashing the impugned orders and the FIR registered against them under the Gangsters Act. This decision rested on the pivotal analysis of Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, highlighting the importance of establishing ongoing prosecutions for offenses specified therein to prevent the abuse of court process.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the appellants argued that the earlier decision in the case of Shraddha Gupta should not apply to them as the criminal cases against them had been quashed by the High Court. They emphasized that the Gangsters Act applies only when individuals are found indulging in anti-social activities as defined by specific sections of the IPC. They noted that since the FIR against the appellants had been quashed and they were exonerated in previous cases, the continuation of the prosecution under the Gangsters Act was unjustified and an abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, they quashed the impugned orders and the FIR against the appellants.
Background:
The case involves appellants Farhana and Sadarul Islam challenging orders dated 14th November, 2022, and 6th December, 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. These orders rejected Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 16653 of 2022 and 18326 of 2022 filed by the appellants, seeking to quash Case Crime No. 424 of 2022 registered against them under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Gangsters Act’) at Police Station-Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat.
The primary contention revolves around whether proceedings under the Gangsters Act and the prosecution of the accused can continue despite exoneration in the predicate offences covered by Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act. Section 2(b)(i) defines a “Gang” as a group involved in certain specified offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR against the appellants was registered based on allegations that they were members of a gang led by Puskal Parag Dubey and were involved in various criminal cases. These cases included Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 and Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The FIR stated that the appellants were liable to be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act due to their involvement in these cases.
The appellants approached the High Court through criminal writ petitions, contending that as only one case was registered against them at the time of filing the FIR, proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act should be quashed.
The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the writ petitions, citing the precedent set in the case of Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which established that prosecution under the Gangsters Act could be initiated even against individuals involved in a single offence covered by the Act. The appellants subsequently appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants challenge the interpretation of the Gangsters Act by the High Court and argue for the quashing of proceedings against them under the Act. They contend that since only one case was registered against them at the time, the invocation of the Gangsters Act was unwarranted.
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
The case before the court involved a challenge to the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants under the Gangsters Act. The appellants argued that the decisions in the case of Shraddha Gupta did not apply to them because the criminal cases against them had been quashed subsequently. Specifically, Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 against both appellants and Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 against one appellant were quashed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The appellants contended that since there were no ongoing prosecutions for anti-social activities as defined in Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, continuing the proceedings against them amounted to an abuse of court process. Conversely, the state argued that at the time of the FIR registration, the appellants were being prosecuted for multiple FIRs involving anti-social offenses, thus justifying the continuation of proceedings under the Gangsters Act.
The court analyzed Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, noting that it covers individuals engaged in anti-social activities punishable under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It observed that for the prosecution to proceed under the Gangsters Act, it must establish that the accused were involved in such anti-social activities.
Crucially, the court noted that with the quashing of Crime Case No. 173 of 2019, the foundation for prosecuting the appellants under the Gangsters Act was undermined. Since the prosecution failed to establish ongoing prosecutions for offenses falling under Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, continuing the proceedings against the appellants would indeed constitute an abuse of court process.
Ultimately, the court held in favor of the appellants, quashing the impugned orders and the FIR registered against them under the Gangsters Act. The court’s decision was grounded in the lack of ongoing prosecutions for offenses covered by Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, thereby preventing the abuse of court process.
“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.”
Written by- Aditi
