Supreme Court Quashes Gangsters Act Charges After Acquittal in Predicate Offenses: Farhana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) INSC 118 (19 February 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 118

Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Can charges under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) stand if the accused has been acquitted of the underlying criminal offenses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Farhana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court examined whether the Gangsters Act can be invoked when the accused has been cleared of the predicate offenses that form the basis of the charges under the Gangsters Act. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by Farhana and Sadarul Islam against the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’s decision to reject their petitions to quash the charges against them under the Gangsters Act. The charges stemmed from an FIR filed against them, alleging that they were members of a gang led by Puskal Parag Dubey and were involved in several criminal cases. These predicate offenses included:

• Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Sadarul Islam.
• Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Farhana.

The appellants argued that since they were only facing one case at the time of filing the FIR under the Gangsters Act, the proceedings should be quashed. The High Court, relying on a previous judgment, rejected their plea. However, subsequent to the High Court’s decision, the appellants were acquitted in the predicate offenses.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core of the legal issue revolves around Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which defines a “gang” as a group of persons who, “acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, namely — (i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that to prosecute someone under the Gangsters Act, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused is involved in offenses listed under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the IPC. The Court noted that the prosecution’s case against the appellants was solely based on Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act should be quashed because the predicate offenses, which were the basis for the charges under the Gangsters Act, had been quashed by the High Court.
• They contended that with the quashing of Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 and Crime Case No. 190 of 2021, there was no ongoing prosecution against them for any offense involving anti-social activities as defined in Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act.
• The appellants submitted that the continuation of the proceedings under the Gangsters Act was an abuse of the process of the Court.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that at the time of the registration of the FIR under the Gangsters Act, the appellants were being prosecuted for multiple FIRs involving anti-social offenses as defined under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act.
• The State relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2022 SCCOnline SC 514], which held that prosecution under the Gangsters Act can be initiated even against a person involved in a single offense.
• The State contended that the subsequent quashing of the predicate offenses should not affect the validity of the FIR under the Gangsters Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the proceedings of the FIR under the provisions of the Gangsters Act and the prosecution of the accused can be continued in spite of exoneration in the predicate offenses covered by Section 2(b)(i) of Gangsters Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2022 SCCOnline SC 514] – The High Court relied on this case to hold that a single offense is sufficient to initiate proceedings under the Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from the present facts as in this case the predicate offenses have been quashed by the High Court.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Defines “gang” and the anti-social activities that fall under the Act.
• Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Provides for punishment for offenses under the Act.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The provision under which the High Court quashed the predicate offenses.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2022 SCCOnline SC 514], stating that the facts of the present case were different because here, the predicate offenses had been quashed by the High Court.
• The Court interpreted Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act to mean that the accused must be involved in offenses under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the IPC to be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act.
• The Court acknowledged that the High Court had quashed the predicate offenses using Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the predicate offenses, which formed the basis for the charges under the Gangsters Act, had been quashed by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the very foundation for continuing the prosecution under the Gangsters Act was removed when the predicate offenses were quashed. The Court also highlighted that the prosecution’s case was solely based on Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, which requires the accused to be involved in offenses under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the IPC.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that once the predicate offenses were quashed, the basis for invoking the Gangsters Act no longer existed. The Court did not delve into alternative interpretations, as the legal position was clear: the Gangsters Act charges were contingent upon the existence of the predicate offenses.

The Court stated, “Hence, the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of the Gangsters Act stands struck off and as a consequence, the continued prosecution of the appellants for the said offence is unjustified and tantamount s to abuse of the process of Court.”

The Court also observed, “There being no dispute that in the proceedings of the sole FIR registered against the appellants for the offences under Chapter XVII IPC being Crime Case No. 173 of 2019, the appellants stand exonerated with the quashing of the said FIR by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973…”

The Court concluded, “As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, the impugned orders dated 14th November, 2022 and 6th December, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the impugned FIR being Crime Case No.424 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, registered at Police Station – Bhognipur, District – Kanpur Dehat and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the appellants are hereby quashed.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Charges under the Gangsters Act cannot stand if the predicate offenses, which form the basis of those charges, are quashed by a competent court.
• The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused is involved in offenses listed under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the IPC to prosecute them under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act.
• The quashing of predicate offenses removes the very foundation for continuing prosecution under the Gangsters Act.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders of the High Court and the FIR registered under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act along with all proceedings initiated against the appellants.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that proceedings under the Gangsters Act cannot continue if the predicate offenses under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are quashed by a competent court. This clarifies that the Gangsters Act cannot be used as a standalone measure if the underlying criminal activities are deemed invalid by a court of law. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the Gangsters Act is contingent on the existence of valid predicate offenses and cannot be sustained if those offenses are overturned.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Farhana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies that charges under the Gangsters Act cannot stand if the predicate offenses are quashed. The Court emphasized that the foundation for the Gangsters Act charges is the existence of valid predicate offenses. This decision provides significant relief to individuals who have been acquitted of the underlying offenses and ensures that the Gangsters Act is not used as a tool for harassment.