The Allahabad High Court has held that the lodging of an FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is valid and permissible, even on the basis of involvement of a person in a single case.
The Division Bench of Justice Samit Gopal and Justice Pritinker Diwaker passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc.Writ Petition filed by Ritesh Kumar Alias Rikki. The petition has been filed challenging the FIR of case under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.
The Court observed thus while dismissing a bunch of 12 writ petitions raising the following question:
“Whether a first information report under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Gangsters Act’] can be lodged and is maintainable on the basis of involvement of the petitioner(s) / accused in a single previous case”.
The common ground as raised in all the writ petitions is that the petitioners have been made accused in the impugned first information reports which have been lodged under the provisions of the Gangsters Act on the basis of their involvement in a solitary case and even the gang chart prepared and approved by the authority shows that there is a single case against them on the basis of which, the impugned first information report has been registered which is illegal and against the essence of the Gangsters Act.
The Petition said first information report could not have been lodged on the basis of a solitary case and as such, the said writ petitions should be allowed and the respective impugned first information reports be quashed.
Amrendra Pratap Singh, Counsel appearing in matter argued that:
(i) The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of concocted facts and influence of illegal politics.
(ii) The impugned first information report has been lodged on the basis of a single case shown against the petitioner in which he has been granted bail vide order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the trial court.
(iii) No offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner.
(iv) There is no independent witness of the alleged incident and the story narrated by the police is false. The petitioner is a peace loving and law abiding citizen.
(v) The lodging the impugned first information report on the basis of a solitary case is illegal. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner is either a gang leader or member of any gang as there is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was a meeting of minds of persons to commit the offence. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner along with co-accused collectively committed the offence. There is no material to show that the alleged gang is operating.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court dismisses pleas against invoking of Gangsters Act
J.K. Upadhyay and Amit Sinha, Additional Government Advocates appearing for the State of U.P. submitted that :
(i) Under the Gangsters Act, lodging of the first information reports even on the basis of the involvement of an accused in a single and solitary case is not illegal.
(ii) The implication of an accused in a single case is not a bar in lodging a first information report under the provisions of the Gangsters Act even after a considerable period of time.
(iii) Since the perusal of the first information report discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the impugned first information reports cannot be quashed.
(iv) Barring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4149 of 2021 which is though connected with this bunch but the same has the implication of the petitioner therein on the basis of two cases, the other cases being argued on the premise that lodging of the first information report under the Gangsters Act on the basis of a solitary case is not permissible, is incorrect. In the said judgements, it has been held that a first information report under the Gangsters Act can be registered on the basis of a solitary case.
(v) Since perusal of the impugned first information reports in all the cases does disclose commission of an offence, investigation is required and since investigation is required, the said first information reports cannot be quashed.
(vi) The efforts of the learned counsels for the petitioners to demonstrate that their involvement in the previous case on the basis of which the impugned first information reports have been registered are false implications, cannot be gone into by this Court as the said cases are not the matters to be adjudicated by this Court and are separate cause of actions.
(vii) Since a cognizable offence is made out on the reading of the first information reports in all the cases, investigation is required and as such, the same cannot be quashed and so no interim order of protection can also be granted as per settled principles of law.
(viii) The present writ petitions are devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed.
The Court relied on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others: Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 in its judgment dated 13th April, 2021 has in detail held that the Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the First Information Report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details regarding the offence reported.
Also Read: Complainant filed forged vakalatnama at the behest of accused: Allahabad High Court
Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court should not go into the merits of the allegations made in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation.
“After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, all the writ petitions were argued on the common point for which the question as framed, is answered that as per the settled principles of law, the lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case, is valid and permissible. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in the impugned first information reports or the cases on the basis of which the impugned first information reports have been lodged,” the Court observed.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.