Appeal
Appeal against dismissal of quash petition
1. The Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2025 arises out of the judgment (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”), passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.04.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 36921 of 2019, whereby the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the CrPC”) for quashing of the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned proceedings”), arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “subject FIR”), under Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act of 1986”) lodged at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Whereas, the Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 2025 arises out of the order (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”), passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10817 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023, whereby the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued against the appellant vide orders dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad in the impugned proceedings.
Factual Matrix
FIR registered as the appellant is the leader of gang adept at committing economic offences
3. The impugned proceedings arise out of the subject FIR, which came to be registered against the appellant on 28.07.2018 at the instance of the Station House Officer (SHO), P.S. Naini. The FIR alleges that upon visits to certain areas, it was ascertained that the appellant, along with one David Dutta, constitute an organized gang in terms of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, with the appellant acting as its leader. It is further alleged that the gang is adept at committing economic offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the kind, described in Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC respectively for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for themselves by forging documents. On the basis of the following base FIRs, the subject FIR was registered:
“ ……………. “
4. The gang-chart qua the appellant was purportedly approved by the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 28.07.2018. It also reflects the signatures of Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated 27.07.2018 alongwith the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Trans Yamuna and the Circle Officer, Karchhana.
NBW issued against the appellant
5. By order dated 28.02.2023, the non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the appellant by the Special Judge (Gangster Act) in the impugned proceedings, and by order dated 14.03.2023, the application seeking recall of the said non-bailable warrants came to be rejected.
Appellant prefers quash against NBW rejection order
6. The appellant by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 36921 of 2019 assailed the impugned proceedings arising out of the subject FIR; and by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10817/2023 assailed the impugned orders and prayed for their quashing before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Analysis
17. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we must try to understand the basic principles governing quashing of complaints and criminal proceedings. This Court, in various judgments, more particularly in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down parameters for quashing of an FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereof. It is through the lens of these parameters that we shall examine whether the impugned proceedings warrant quashing, or whether the impugned judgment is correct in declining to do so. The parameters are:
“ ……… ”
Term gang explained
21. It is apparent that the definition of the term “gang” is not attracted by mere association with a miscreant group. For such a group to metamorphize into a gang, it must engage in anti-social activities enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), and these must be committed for the object mentioned thereunder. In essence, a group of persons falls within the ambit of Section 2(b) only when the requirements set forth in Rule 3 are satisfied.
Gangster is a member of a gang indulged in any of the enumerated anti-social activities
22. This Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported as (2022) 19 SCC 57, held that an accused can be termed as “gangster” when he as a member of a gang, has indulged in any of the enumerated anti-social activities, whether by means expressly stated or otherwise, with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“25. A group of persons may act collectively or any one of the members of the group may also act singly, with the object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, who can be termed as “gangster”. A member of a “gang” acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a member of the “gang” and comes within the definition of “gang”, provided he/she is found to have indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act.
xxx
27. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/chargesheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a “gang” and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person and he/she can be termed as “gangster” within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act.” (Emphasis supplied)
25. From the above exposition of law, a group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activity enumerated in clauses (i) to (xvv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise, and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
26. Although the present matter presently before us pertains solely to the subject FIR in question, yet it must be noted that an FIR registered under the Act of 1986 cannot be sustained in the absence of a base case/FIR. Accordingly, it becomes imperative to undertake a prima facie examination of the allegations underlying the registration of the subject FIR and the consequent preparation of gang-chart.
27. We deem it necessary to reiterate that our observations concerning the base FIRs are confined exclusively to the purpose of assessing the subject FIR and the impugned proceedings before us. The trial arising from the base FIRs shall, in no manner whatsoever, be prejudiced or influenced by the present discussion.
Role of the investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime
30. The contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency, as it discloses nothing beyond what was already stated in the subject FIR. Further, it remains obscure how the investigating authorities could assert that the offence under Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively stands “proved” against the appellant sans enclosing any documentary proved. We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be “proved”. We would like to remind that the role of investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime; the guilt or the innocence of the accused is for the trial court to determine.
Apex court does not see any disturbance in public order by reading the FIR
31. It is noteworthy to mention that the subject FIR was registered after approximately a year from the date of the registration of the first base FIR. In the three base FIRs – FIR No. 726/2017, FIR No. 761/2017, and FIR No. 244/2017, respectively, the allegations against the appellant pertain to offences under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the IPC and thus, may fall within the scope of anti-social activities itemized under Section 2(b). Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these acts were committed by any of the means specified therein, they do not, even in the remotest possibility, appear to us that they had been committed with the object of disturbing public order or to gain any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
David dutta does not figure at all as an accused in base FIRs
32. It is also pertinent to note that in the impugned proceedings, the appellant and one David Dutta have been arraigned as gangsters, whereas in the above-mentioned three base FIRs, David Dutta does not figure at all as an accused. In such circumstances, the gang-chart could not have listed the said three FIRs, as the base FIRs, against the appellant and David Dutta together. If the investigating agency contemplated the existence of a gang comprising of both known and unknown persons, then it becomes incumbent upon the investigating agency to specify the same in both the gang-chart and the chargesheet.
Since no plausible explanation came from Investigating Agency about selective accused investigation creates serious doubts on the Bonafide of I.A
33. We find merit in the submission advanced by Mr. Dave that if the subject FIR and the gang-chart were indeed prepared on the strength of the base FIRs, there is no good or plausible explanation coming from the investigating agency as to why no investigation was initiated against other similarly placed accused persons named therein. This selective approach raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the investigating agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken under the Act of 1986.
Date of incident is absent in the FIR
34. Moreover, of the two remaining base FIRs – FIR No. 476/2017 and FIR No. 170/2017 respectively, one has already been quashed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 385/2024 vide order dated 24.01.2024. In the other FIR, i.e., FIR No. 170/2017, the date of the incident is conspicuously absent, though the FIR itself was registered on 21.08.2017. The allegations therein pertain to the administration of a school and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have been committed with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage for the appellant or any other person.
Apart from mere reiteration of contents of FIR investigation does not reveal crime
35. The allegations also fail to disclose whether any act of violence, threat, show of violence, intimidation, or coercion was resorted to for achieving the said object. Even the chargesheet filed pursuant to the investigation in the said base FIR, apart from mere reiteration of the contents of the FIR, makes only a vague reference to the signatures allegedly forged on certain forms and documents.
36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in view of the vague and general allegations levelled in the subject FIR, requiring the appellant to stand trial would amount to nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Non-interference in such a case would result in miscarriage of justice.
Principles of quashing couched in Section 482 of the CrPC
39. In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameter nos. 1 and 7 respectively of Bhajan Lal (supra) referred to above. The duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, wherein one of us, J.B. Pardiwala, J., was part of the Bench. We may refer to the following observations with profit:
“34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” (Emphasis supplied)
Hon’ble High Court has erred in not quashing FIR
41. Upon evaluating the present case in the context of the allegations made and in light of the decisions referred, we have no hesitation in saying that the High Court committed an egregious error in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the subject FIR No. 850/2018 and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof qua the appellant.
How to approve Gang chart? Explained
57. The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021. Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
Mere sanction is no sanction
60. In the present case, the sanction order merely states that, based on the examination of the evidence collected, the accused were found to be involved in the commission of offences under the IPC by forming a gang with the objective of deriving economic and monetary benefits, and that a prima facie case exists for filing a chargesheet under Section(s) 2 and 3 of the Act of 1986.
Conclusion
FIRs quashed and appeal succeeds
65. We are convinced that the continuation of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh will be nothing but abuse of the process of the law.
66. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the application under Section 482 of the CrPC, preferred by the appellant for quashing of the impugned proceedings; and rejection of the application preferred by the appellant for quashing of non-bailable warrants vide order dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 850/2018 dated 28.07.2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh are hereby quashed.
Judgments cited or involved the following cases
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Parameters for quashing FIRs and criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 19 SCC 57 – Clarifies that a person can be termed a “gangster” if, as a gang member, they indulge in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order or gaining undue advantage.
Nafees & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 SCC OnLine All 852 – Requires recording satisfaction of reasonable and proximate connection between alleged occurrence and accused’s activity before invoking the Gangsters Act.
Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 SCC OnLine All 203 – Defines “gang” as a group indulging in anti-social activities by violence, threat, intimidation, or coercion to disturb public order or gain undue advantage.
Sukarmpal v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 5848 – Emphasizes that offences under the Gangsters Act must be committed by a gang member with the specified object and conditions under Section 2(b).
Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 – Court must closely examine FIRs alleged to be frivolous or vexatious and consider overall circumstances to detect ulterior motives.
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 – High Court can quash proceedings if allegations do not constitute an offence or evidence fails to prove the charge.
Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 – Subjective satisfaction of authority requires independent application of mind to relevant material, clearly reflected in the order.
Sanni Mishra v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975 – Criticizes police for improper preparation and approval of gang charts, laying down directions for compliance.
Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 2589/2025 (order dated 19.04.2024) – Directed State to formulate guidelines for invoking the Gangsters Act, leading to a 29-point checklist for procedural compliance.
Acts and Sections involved
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
– Section 2(b): Definition of “gang”
– Sections 2 and 3: Offences and penalties under the Act
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
– Section 156(1): Police investigation of cognizable offences
– Section 155(2): Magistrate’s order for investigation of non-cognizable offences
– Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
– Various sections including 406, 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, etc., related to offences like cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and attempt to murder
Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
– Rules 3, 5(2), 5(3), 16, 17, 20, 26, 36: Procedural safeguards and requirements for preparation and approval of gang-charts and investigation under the Act
Party
Vinod Bihari Lal versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr – Criminal Appeal Nos. 777-778 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5376-5377 of 2023) – 2025 INSC 767 – 23rd May 2025 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra.
