Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra allowed the appeals challenging the validity of FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, directing that the proceedings pursuant to the said FIR be quashed in entirety. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR and the supporting material failed to satisfy the statutory requirements to constitute a "gang" under Section 2(b) of the Act, and the authorities had not demonstrated application of mind as mandated by the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. The Court further directed that the investigation and subsequent prosecution were vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards.

The appeals arose from the judgment dated 19.04.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting two applications filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The first application sought quashing of the proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019, arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The second application challenged the non-bailable warrants issued against the appellant by orders dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 in the same trial.

Also Read: Supreme Court: IAS Officers Can't Write ACRs Of Indian Forest Service Officers Up To APCCF Rank | Reporting Authority Must Be Immediate Superior Within Forest Department

The subject FIR was registered on 28.07.2018 by the Station House Officer, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, alleging that the appellant, along with one David Dutta, constituted an organized gang engaging in economic offences through document forgery and fraud. The FIR cited five base FIRs, each alleging financial misconduct or related offences, including misappropriation of school funds, unauthorized operation of educational institutions, and attempted land encroachment through forged court orders.

The base FIRs referenced in the gang-chart were as follows:

1. FIR No. 476/2017 (09.08.2017): Alleged embezzlement of Rs. 13 crores through document forgery in student fee transactions.

2. FIR No. 170/2017 (21.08.2017): Alleged operation of a school without recognition or regulatory approval, and document forgery.

3. FIR No. 726/2017 (25.08.2017): Alleged instigation to fire upon an informant.

4. FIR No. 761/2017 (17.12.2017): Alleged embezzlement through manipulation of Diocesan Education Board appointments.

5. FIR No. 244/2017 (17.12.2017): Alleged forgery to encroach upon vacant lands using counterfeit judicial documents.

Of these, proceedings in three FIRs were stayed by the High Court, one FIR was quashed by the Supreme Court, and one continued without stay.

The gang-chart was purportedly approved by the District Magistrate on 28.07.2018, with prior recommendations from the Senior Superintendent of Police and Circle Officer, but without evidence of a joint meeting or detailed application of mind.

The appellant contended that:

1. None of the base FIRs contained specific allegations of violence, threat, or coercion.

2. The essential object of disturbing public order or securing undue advantage, as required under Section 2(b) of the Act, was absent.

3. The gang-chart failed to demonstrate adherence to procedural rules requiring independent evaluation by each authority involved.

4. Several accused named in the base FIRs were not included in the gangster FIR, casting doubt on the consistency of the investigation.

The respondent-State argued that:

• The base FIRs disclosed cognizable offences justifying invocation of the Gangsters Act.

• Allegations included threats, coercion, and organized financial fraud.

• The appellant had multiple criminal antecedents, with over thirty-two pending cases.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the statutory requirements under Section 2(b) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021, which define a "gang" and outline conditions for criminal liability.

"A group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activity enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise, and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage."

The Court held that mere association with persons involved in multiple FIRs did not suffice. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that the appellant's actions were undertaken with the requisite object under the statute.

"Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these acts were committed by any of the means specified therein, they do not, even in the remotest possibility, appear to us that they had been committed with the object of disturbing public order or to gain any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage."

On the procedural side, the Court found multiple violations: "We are anguished that not only there is no material on record to indicate communication of the satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, but also there is no mention as to on which particular date the gang-chart was forwarded..."

The Court disapproved the mechanical approval of gang-charts without evidence of a joint meeting or individualized reasoning. "The approval of the gang-chart by affixing signature on a pre-printed document reflects nothing short of a complete non-application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 2021."

Further, the Court deprecated the language of the chargesheet which stated that offences under Sections 2 and 3 stood "proved" during investigation. "We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be 'proved'."

The Court underscored that investigating agencies are obligated to present facts without pre-judging guilt, leaving such determinations to the trial court. "The role of investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime; the guilt or the innocence of the accused is for the trial court to determine."

The Court relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which enumerates categories warranting quashing of FIRs. The Court noted that the present case fell within parameters (1) and (7):

(1) Where the allegations do not constitute an offence.
(7) Where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted to wreak vengeance.

"The High Court committed an egregious error in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC..."

The Court also clarified that criminal antecedents cannot justify prosecution where no offence is made out. "Howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence... the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter."

The Supreme Court held that the impugned FIR No. 850 of 2018, the gang-chart, and all proceedings arising from them against the appellant were unsustainable in law. It directed as follows:

"We have no hesitation in saying that the High Court committed an egregious error in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the subject FIR No. 850/2018 and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof qua the appellant."

Further, regarding procedural compliance: "The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021... The registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards."

On the principle of liberty: "We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse."

The Supreme Court recorded in unambiguous terms: "We are convinced that the continuation of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh will be nothing but abuse of the process of the law."

Also Read: Minor Scuffles Do Not Amount To Cruelty | Madras High Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown | Matrimonial Life And Career Are Like Two Eyes Of A Human Being

In the result, the Court stated: "These appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the application under Section 482 of the CrPC, preferred by the appellant for quashing of the impugned proceedings; and rejection of the application preferred by the appellant for quashing of non-bailable warrants vide order dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 850/2018 dated 28.07.2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh are hereby quashed."

The Court clarified: "It is needless to clarify that the observations made in this judgment are relevant only for the purpose of the subject FIR in question and the consequential criminal proceedings. None of the observations shall have any bearing on any of the pending criminal prosecutions or any other proceedings."

Finally, the Court noted: "Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Senior Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Garima Prashad, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 767

Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 777-778 of 2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

[Read/Download order]