Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 904

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Vinod Bihari Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 777-778 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5376-5377 of 2023]
Decided On : 23-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pallavi Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Garima Prashad Sr. Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anti-Social Activities – Continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in abuse of process of law.
(2) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – It is not for courts to embark upon enquiry into reliability or genuineness of allegations made in FIR at stage of quashing of proceedings.
(3) Approval of gang-chart – Competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding gang-chart – Independent application of mind cannot be presumed.

Headnote:
(A) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Sections 2 and 3 – U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 – Rules 5(2), 5(3), 16 and 17 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest and preparation of gang-chart – FIR registered under Act of 1986 cannot be sustained in absence of a base case/FIR – Charge-sheet is devoid of any annexures or enclosures that might substantiate allegations or indicate that a genuine, impartial and transparent investigation was carried out – Statements attributed to complainant and witnesses are mere verbatim reproductions of subject FIR and base FIRs – Contents of charge-sheet reflect casual and cavalier attitude on part of investigating agency, as it discloses nothing beyond what was already stated in subject FIR – In view of vague and general allegations levelled in subject FIR, requiring appellant to stand trial would amount to nothing but abuse of process of law – Non-interference in such a case would result in miscarriage of justice – High Court committed egregious error in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash subject FIR and all further proceedings – Continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in abuse of process of law – Impugned judgment and order as well as criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 26, 29, 30, 36, 41, 62 and 66)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – It is not for courts to embark upon enquiry into reliability or genuineness of allegations made in FIR at stage of quashing of proceedings – However, it is of paramount importance that allegations made against accused, if taken at face value, must disclose commission of offence, whether from FIR, charge-sheet, or other relevant materials – It is incumbent upon courts to exercise their discretionary powers where materials on record indicate that criminal proceeding are being misused as instruments of oppression or harassment. (Para 37)
(C) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 – Rules 5(2), 5(3), 16 and 17 – Approval of gang-chart – Use of independent mind by competent authorities – Gang-chart was approved summarily, without any discussion – Competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding gang-chart – Underlying objective behind prohibition of use of pre-printed gang-charts is to ensure that competent authority undertakes a conscious and reasoned application of mind, rather than merely endorsing a pre-prepared document – Such a safeguard is integral to preserving procedural sanctity of law and preventing arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely affect rights and liberties of individuals – Independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it is demonstrable from record that approving authority has, in letter and spirit, independently considered all materials that culminated in preparation and placement of gang chart before him – Satisfaction of approving authority is sine qua non for taking action under Act of 1986. (Paras 45, 49, 51 and 54)
Facts of the case:
Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2025 arises out of judgment passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.04.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 36921 of 2019, whereby High Court rejected the application filed by appellant herein under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 under Sections 2 and 3 respectively of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 lodged at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 2025 arises out of order passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10817 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023, whereby High Court rejected application filed by appellant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued against appellant vide orders dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively, passed by Special Judge, Allahabad in impugned proceedings.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and consequently, impugned order clearly bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court which makes the interference of this Court necessary.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

INDEX
(A)	FACTUAL MATRIX
(B)	IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
(C)	SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
(D)	SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
(E)	ANALYSIS
	(a) Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Act of 1986
	(i) Definition of “gang” under the Act of 1986
	(ii) Principles of quashing couched in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
	(b) Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Rules of 2021
	(i) Application of mind and satisfaction of competent authorities
(F)	CONCLUSION

1. The Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2025 arises out of the judgment (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.04.2023 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 36921 of 2019, whereby the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned proceedings”), arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “subject FIR”), under Sections 2 and 3 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act of 1986”) lodged at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.

2. Whereas, the Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 2025 arises out of the order (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10817 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023, whereby the High Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued against the appellant vide orders dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad in the impugned proceedings.

(A) FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The impugned proceedings arise out of the subject FIR, which came to be registered against the appellant on 28.07.2018 at the instance of the Station House Officer (SHO), P.S. Naini. The FIR alleges that upon visits to certain areas, it was ascertained that the appellant, alongwith one David Dutta, constitute an organized gang in terms of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, with the appellant acting as its leader. It is further alleged that the gang is adept at committing economic offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the kind, described in Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the IPC respectively for personal, material and pecuniary gain for themselves by forging documents. On the basis of the following base FIRs, the subject FIR was registered:

S. No.	Base FIRs	Allegations qua the appellant	Status of proceedings
1.	FIR No. 476/2017 registered on 09.08.2017 u/Ss. 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC	The appellant with other accused persons forged forms and documents, siphoned off approximately Rs. 13 crores which was the fee submitted by students	This Court quashed the FIR vide order dated 24.01.2024 in Crl. Appeal No. 385/2024
2.	FIR No. 170/2017 registered on 21.08.2017 u/Ss. 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC	The accused persons are running Ewing Christian Public School without any recognition; the building of the said school is not in accordance with building norms and is being run without permission from the Allahabad Development Authority and the concerned Contracted Power Institutions. The accused persons have hatched a conspiracy and forged signatures on forms and documents. They have misappropriated Rs. 6 crores out of the fee deposited by the students Date of Incident: Not Mentioned	The High Court stayed the further proceedings vide order dated