Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by Former MLA Irfan Solanki seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“the Gangsters Act”), the Single Judge Bench of Samit Gopal, J., rejected the application, holding that the facts of the case, stage of the trial, and the prima facie material available against Irfan Solanki did not make it a fit case for interference.
Background
An FIR was filed under the Gangsters Act against 5 persons, namely Irfan Solanki and four others, alleging that on a routine area round and inspection, the informant discovered that the accused persons had an active gang and together and independently were involved in several offences.
On 07-11-2022, the gang gathered and set ablaze the victim’s home with the intention of forcibly occupying the plot. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the accused persons under Sections 436 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), in which Sections 147, 327, 427, 386, 504, and 120B of the IPC were added later.
The complainant further alleged that the gang members had criminal cases pending against them, such as arson, forcibly taking properties into possession, cheating, forgery, and other criminal activities. Due to their criminal activities, there is fear in the public and commotion in the area, making people wary of lodging reports and giving evidence. Thus, their acts made out a case under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.
After lodging of the FIR, a gang chart was prepared wherein Irfan Solanki was shown to be involved in the impugned FIR registered under Sections 147, 436, 506, 327, 427, 386, 504, 120B of the IPC. The matter was in trial and at the stage of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that the orders taking cognizance and summoning could not be looked into at this stage for quashing because after those orders were passed, the discharge application was filed by Irfan Solanki, which was rejected by the Trial Court, and charges were framed against him and the co-accused.
Regarding the violation of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (“the Rules”), the Court stated that upon perusal of the facts and the gang-chart, it transpired that the Commissioner of Police gave his opinion independently in it while approving the same. Thus, it could not be said that he merely signed on a pre-formatted gang chart while obtaining approval.
Noting that Irfan Solanki had been convicted in another case by the Trial Court and his appeal was pending before the High Court, the Court referred to Kunal Chawala v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 4606, wherein the Court reiterated that after framing of charge there cannot be a discharge but only an acquittal can be done on a finding of not guilty turning on the merits of the case.
The Court also referred to Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484, wherein the Supreme Court held that quashing of a criminal case by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(“CrPC”), should be done in exceptional cases only. The Supreme Court also held that a criminal case cannot be quashed on the ground of the possibility that the complainant may have filed the case out of political vengeance.
Placing reliance on the four-step test for considering quashing applications under Section 482 of the CrPC laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, the Court noted that the conditions were not being fulfilled in the present case.
Thus, the Court rejected the application, holding that the proposition of law, facts of the case, stage of the trial, the prima facie material available against Irfan Solanki, and the non-fulfilment of the conditions of the four-step test, did not call for the Court to consider it a fit case for interference.
[Irfan Solanki v. State of U.P., Application u/S 528 BNSS No. 46079 of 2025, decided on 30-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Imran Ullah, Mohit Singh, Vineet Vikram
For the respondent: Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, AGA-I Rupak Chaubey
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
