Supreme Court: In two criminal appeals filed against the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, whereby the High Court rejected the application filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial arising out of First Information Report (‘FIR’) under Sections 2 and 3 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (‘Act of 1986’), the division bench of JB Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra,JJ. viewed that continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, as well as the order rejecting the application for recall of non-bailable warrants, were set aside. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were quashed.
Background
The impugned proceedings arose out of the subject FIR, which was registered against the accused in 2018 at the instance of the Station House Officer (‘SHO’). The FIR alleged that, during visits to certain areas, it was ascertained that the accused, along with one another individual constituted an organized gang within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, 1986, with the accused acting as its leader. It was further alleged that the gang was involved in economic offences such as fraud and cheating, offences falling under Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC, committed for personal, material, and pecuniary gain by forging documents.
By order dated 28-02-2023, the Special Judge (Gangster Act) issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against the accused in the impugned proceedings. Subsequently, by order dated 14-03-2023, the application filed for recall of the said non-bailable warrants was rejected.
The accused challenged the impugned proceedings arising out of the FIR through Criminal Miscellaneous Application. Additionally, he challenged the impugned orders and sought their quashing by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
However, the High Cour rejected the same, aggrieved the accused filed the present appeals.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined the basic principles governing quashing of complaints and criminal proceedings.
Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Act of 1986
The Court took note of the definition of the term “gang” under the Gangsters Act, 1986. It observed that mere association with a miscreant group did not attract the definition of a “gang” under the Act. For a group to qualify as a gang, it must engage in anti-social activities as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), and such activities must be committed with the object specified therein.
The Court held that, as per the legal framework, a group of individuals could be considered a gang only when they, either individually or collectively, engaged in any of the anti-social activities listed in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), either through the means specified or otherwise, and—most importantly—with the objective of disturbing public order or obtaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage for themselves or any other person.
Although the matter before the Court pertained specifically to the subject FIR, it emphasised that an FIR registered under the Gangsters Act, 1986 could not be sustained in the absence of a valid base case or FIR. Accordingly, the Court found it imperative to undertake a prima facie assessment of the allegations that led to the registration of the subject FIR and the preparation of the gang chart.
The Court observed that the chargesheet, filed upon completion of the investigation, named only two accused persons, including the accused herein. It explicitly stated that, based on the investigation conducted, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, as well as the gang chart and the FIRs referred to therein, the offences under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986 stood “proved” against the accused.
However, the Court noted that the chargesheet was devoid of any annexures or enclosures that could substantiate the allegations or even suggest that a genuine, impartial, and transparent investigation had been conducted. The statements attributed to the complainant and the witnesses were found to be mere verbatim reproductions of the subject FIR and the base FIRs, lacking independent evidentiary value.
The Court highlighted that the contents of the chargesheet reflected a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency, as it disclosed nothing beyond what had already been stated in the subject FIR. Furthermore, it remained unclear how the investigating authorities could assert that the offences under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986 stood “proved” against the accused without enclosing any supporting documentary evidence.
The Court strongly disapproved of this practice, noting that the investigating authority had prematurely proclaimed an offence to be “proved.” It emphatically reminded that the role of the investigating agency was limited to conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime, and that the question of guilt or innocence fell solely within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
The Court further noted that the subject FIR had been registered nearly a year after the registration of the first base FIR. In the three base FIRs, the allegations against the accused pertained to offences under Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC, which could, on the face of it, fall within the ambit of anti-social activities as itemized under Section 2(b) of the Act. However, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these acts had been committed using one of the means specified therein, the Court found no indication, however remote, that such acts had been committed with the object of disturbing public order or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage for the accused or any other person.
Additionally, the Court noted that in the impugned proceedings, both the accused and other individual had been arraigned as gangsters. However, in the aforementioned three base FIRs, the other individual was not named as an accused at all. In such circumstances, the gang-chart could not have justifiably listed these FIRs as base FIRs against both the accused and the other individual together. If the investigating agency had contemplated the existence of a gang comprising both known and unknown individuals, it was incumbent upon the agency to clearly specify the same in both the gang-chart and the chargesheet.
The Court found merit in the submission by the accused that, if the subject FIR and the gang-chart had indeed been prepared on the basis of the base FIRs, there was no plausible explanation offered by the investigating agency as to why no investigation had been initiated against other similarly placed accused persons named in those FIRs. This selective approach, the Court observed, raised serious doubts regarding the bona fides of the investigating agency and cast a shadow over the integrity of the investigation conducted under the Gangsters Act, 1986.
The Court observed that the allegations failed to disclose whether any act of violence, threat, show of violence, intimidation, or coercion had been resorted to in order to achieve the alleged object. Even the chargesheet filed pursuant to the investigation in the said base FIR merely reiterated the contents of the FIR and contained only a vague reference to signatures allegedly forged on certain forms and documents.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the vague and general nature of the allegations set out in the subject FIR, the Court held that requiring the accused to stand trial would amount to nothing short of an abuse of the process of law. It concluded that non-interference in such a situation would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Principles of quashing couched in Section 482 of the CrPC
The Court reiterated that it was not within the court’s remit to embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR at the stage of quashing proceedings. However, it emphasised that it was of paramount importance that the allegations made against the accused, if taken at face value, must disclose the commission of an offence, whether arising from the FIR, the chargesheet, or other relevant materials on record.
The Court further held that it was incumbent upon courts to exercise their discretionary powers in cases where the materials on record clearly indicated that the criminal proceedings were being misused as instruments of oppression or harassment.
The Court held that the High Court had committed an egregious error in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings arising therefrom as against the accused.
Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (‘Rules of 2021’)
The Court noted that there was nothing on record, even upon a microscopic examination, to indicate that a joint meeting had been held prior to the approval of the gang-chart. It found that the gang-chart appeared to have been approved summarily, without any discussion. It had been forwarded and approved swiftly, with no regard for compliance with the relevant rules.
The Court emphasised that compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) ought to have been evident through the record of minutes of the joint meeting, maintained in a register by the District Magistrate. The Court expressed anguish that not only was there no material on record indicating the satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, the Senior Superintendent of Police, and the District Magistrate, but also there was no mention of the specific date on which the gang-chart had been forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Police to the Senior Superintendent of Police, and thereafter, to the District Magistrate for approval.
The Court held that the satisfaction of the approving authority was sine qua non for initiating action under the Act of 1986. It was indispensable for the approving authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, thereby indicating due application of mind before approving the gang-chart. While the recording of satisfaction need not have been exhaustive given that the investigation under the Act of 1986 was yet to be conducted at the stage of approval, it nevertheless had to be independent and must have disclosed reasons justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under the said Act.
The Court further noted that such satisfaction must not be a mere cyclostyled reproduction of the reasoning or application of mind communicated by the recommending authority. This independent application could only be ensured if the approving authority meticulously referred to the material on record, based on which he concluded that grounds existed to justify registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986. Mere reiteration of the contents of the FIR or the chargesheet, the Court clarified, did not constitute an application of mind.
The Court stressed that the approving authority’s satisfaction must rest on definite grounds, it could not be formed in the absence of any basis, as that would leave the liberty of the accused in a precarious position. The basis of such satisfaction must bear a reasonable nexus with the facts available before the authority concerned. Consequently, the decisions of the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities must reflect an application of mind to relevant and material facts present on record.
An independent application of mind, the Court emphasised, could not be presumed unless demonstrable from the record that the approving authority had, in both letter and spirit, independently considered all the materials which led to the preparation and placement of the gang-chart before him. While the correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the absence of such an exercise most certainly did not. A mechanical or routine invocation of power by the recommending, forwarding, or approving authorities was deemed impermissible, as it directly impinged upon the liberty of the individual concerned.
Upon perusal of the material on record, particularly the gang-chart, the Court found it abundantly clear that the said gang-chart had been approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-printed format. Such an act, the Court observed, amounted to a complete non-application of mind and constituted a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 2021. The Court reiterated that the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities were not meant to function as mere rubber stamps.
The competent authority had forwarded and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been prepared in compliance with the provisions of the 2021 Rules. As a result, the registration of the subject FIR stood in clear violation of the procedural safeguards mandated under law. The Court noted with anguish that authorities entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty had treated that responsibility with casual indifference.
The Court observed that it could not be denied that the materials gathered during the investigation merely ignited conjectures and surmises and failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused under the Gangsters Act, 1986. The Court emphasized that at the stage of forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the competent authorities were duty-bound to record their satisfaction that a case for initiating action under the Act of 1986 was made out. Such satisfaction, the Court held, ought to have been reflected clearly in the gang-chart and the accompanying records.
The Court viewed that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused would amount to undue harassment in the absence of any substantive material against him and would consequently result in an abuse of the process of law.
The Court noted that in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4509, the Court had directed the State to establish necessary parameters and guidelines for invoking the provisions of the Act of 1986. Consequently, the Court directed the authorities concerned to adhere strictly to these guidelines and to comply with the prescribed checklist, both in letter and in spirit. In view of the facts of the present case, the Court found it necessary to underscore and reinforce the significance of the Guidelines dated 02-12-2024.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Accused(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Manoj Misra, J.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
