Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed FIR No. 850/2018 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (the “Gangsters Act”) and all consequential proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that:
“The satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking action under the Act of 1986… Once again we are anguished that not only there is no material on record to indicate communication of the satisfaction… but also there is no mention as to on which particular date the gang-chart was forwarded…”
The Court also quashed the non-bailable warrants issued on 28.02.2023 and the rejection of the recall application dated 14.03.2023.
Facts
- FIR No. 850/2018 was registered on 28.07.2018 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act, alleging that the appellant and one other constituted a gang involved in economic offences like fraud and cheating.
- The FIR was based on five previous FIRs from 2017, alleging offences like forgery, cheating, embezzlement, and even an exhortation to commit attempted murder.
- The gang-chart was approved by the District Magistrate, citing prior FIRs, some of which were stayed or quashed by higher courts.
- The appellant’s applications under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR and non-bailable warrants were rejected by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the FIR under the Gangsters Act discloses ingredients of the offence under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act.
- Whether the procedural requirements under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Rules, 2021, were complied with.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The base FIRs do not attribute specific overt acts to the appellant nor show any element of violence or public order disturbance.
- Mere involvement in economic offences does not satisfy the definition of “gang” under Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act.
- There was no application of mind by the authorities who approved the gang-chart; approvals were mechanical.
- The proceedings were malafide and abuse of process, with key FIRs being stayed or quashed.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The FIR and accompanying documents showed that the appellant committed cognizable offences justifying proceedings under the Gangsters Act.
- The appellant has over 30 other criminal cases pending against him.
- The police and authorities followed due procedure in registration and prosecution.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, defining “gang” and anti-social activity.
- Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Rules, 2021, which limits applicability to offences committed:
- for disturbing public order, or
- by violence, intimidation, coercion, etc., to gain unlawful advantage.
- The requirement of application of mind under Rules 5, 16, and 17 of the Gangsters Rules.
The Court held:
“A group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they indulge in anti-social activity enumerated under Section 2(b) with the object of disturbing public order or gaining undue advantage.”
The chargesheet and FIR failed to demonstrate the above. No material showed that the alleged offences aimed at public disorder or unlawful gain through coercive means.
Precedent Analysis
- Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P. — Even one offence under Section 2(b) can attract the Act if it meets statutory requirements.
- Sukarmpal v. State of U.P. (2024) — Mere commission of offence does not invoke the Act unless committed with the specific object under Section 2(b).
- Bhajan Lal (1992) — Laid down parameters for quashing FIRs, including mala fides and lack of prima facie case.
- Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023) — Courts must look beyond the face of FIR in vexatious or malafide cases.
Court’s Reasoning
- No specific evidence was collected in support of the FIR beyond what was already known.
- The gang-chart was approved mechanically, without joint meetings or satisfaction as mandated by law.
- Several base FIRs were either stayed or quashed.
- The chargesheet verbatim reproduced contents of FIRs without independent investigation.
“The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021… truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.”
Conclusion
The FIR and subsequent prosecution were quashed as:
- The allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements of forming a “gang” under Section 2(b).
- Procedural safeguards under the Gangsters Rules were grossly violated.
- The proceedings amounted to abuse of process and mala fide prosecution.
Implications
- This judgment reiterates strict compliance with statutory and procedural requirements before invoking the Gangsters Act.
- Approving authorities must demonstrate active application of mind and cannot mechanically approve gang-charts.
- Courts will not hesitate to intervene in cases of prosecutorial overreach, particularly under special statutes affecting liberty.
