Supreme Court Declines to Quash FIR, States ‘No Occasion to Interfere in Investigation’ in U.P. Gangsters Act Case, Petitioners Can Seek Remedy Post Charge Sheet

Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Rajni Agarwal and another petitioner seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court held that since the investigation was still ongoing, there was no ground to interfere at this stage. The Court further stated that the petitioners could approach the appropriate court after the charge sheet is filed, in accordance with the law.

Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, Rajni Agarwal and another individual, were accused under the U.P. Gangsters Act and sought to have the FIR quashed. They were previously granted interim protection from arrest by the Supreme Court on 3 February 2023. However, with the investigation still ongoing, the petitioners approached the Court to seek quashing of the FIR.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the FIR should be quashed, as there was no substantial evidence against them, and continuing the investigation would cause undue hardship.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh, contended that the investigation was still in progress, and the petitioners had no valid grounds for quashing the FIR at this stage. They argued that the appropriate course of action for the petitioners would be to challenge the charges after the investigation concludes and the charge sheet is filed.

Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court found that the investigation was still in its preliminary stage and that interfering at this juncture was premature. The Court stated that the petitioners could seek appropriate legal remedies if the charge sheet is filed. The Court also vacated the interim protection from arrest granted earlier, allowing the investigation to continue unimpeded.

Conclusion:
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with the Supreme Court vacating the interim protection granted to the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the petitioners could challenge the charges after the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed.