| CITATION | 2024 INSC 118 |
| NATURE OF CASE | Criminal appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 19th February, 2024 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Farhana |
| RESPONDENT | State of Uttar Pradesh |
| BENCH | Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta |
INTRODUCTION-
This case deals with the issue of prosecution of the appellant/accused under section 3(1) of Gangster Act as the appellant was accused in two other FIRs for anti-social acts which were lodged against them. The main averment in the present case is FIR on basis of which another subsequent FIR under gangster act was registered, that FIR is quashed by Hon’ble High Court. At this stage, only one FIR registered under Gangster Act is pending against the appellants for which this appeal is dealing with.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
1. That two FIR cases i.e. Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short ‘IPC’) and (2) Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Sadarul Islam and Fahran was registered against the appellants/accused.
2. On the basis of these criminal histories of gang, the police registered another FIR against the appellants/accused after taking prior approval pertaining to the Gang Chart from the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.
3. The appellants filed a quashing petition before the High Court with this contention that at the time of registration of FIR, only one case was registered against them. The said quashing petition was dismissed by the Hon’able High Court vide order dated 14/11/2022 and 06/12/2022 on the basis of case Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1 in which it is held that the case under Gangster Act can be registered even if one FIR is registered under offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The appellant filed the present appeal against the impugned orders dated 14/11/2022 and 06/12/2022.
QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDER-
Whether the appellants/accused are liable to be prosecuted under section 3(1) of Gangster act?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS–
1. The appellants contended that case titled as Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others is not applicable in the present case as both the cases Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 and Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 were quashed by Hon’able High Court. Hence, there is no criminal case is pending, which involve any anti-social activity, against the appellants/accused on the basis of which the appellants/accused was charged under Gangster Act. So the appellant prayed for quashing of FIR involved in the present appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE-
1. The prosecution argued that there is no dispute that at the time of FIR under Gangster Act, one FIR was registered against the FIR and as per Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the FIR can be registered against the appellants.
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF COURT-
The Apex Court held that the one FIR which was registered against the appellants/accused at the time of registration of FIR under Gangster Act, was quashed by the Hon’able High Court. Hence, it is unjustified to prosecute the appellant in FIR registered under Gangster Act. Hence, the Apex Court sets aside the impugned orders dated 14/11/2022 and 06/12/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Apex Court also quashed Crime Case No.424 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act against the appellants.
ANALYSIS-
The prosecution has not raised any other contention than the one contention that one FIR was registered against the appellants at the time of registration of FIR under gangster act which was correctly rejected by Hon’able Apex Court.
CONCLUSION-
The prosecution was framing the appellants/accused incorrectly as Hon’able High Court had already quashed that FIR on the basis of which FIR under Gangster Act was registered. When the main FIR is quashed which means no offence was committed by the appellants then how the appellants can be continued to charge in subsequent FIR which was based on an already quashed FIR.
REFERENCES-
1. website of Indian Kanoon-
This article is written by Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate, graduated from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Intern at LegalVidiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments