Supreme Court of India
PADMA MISHRA versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. on 13 February 2020
2020 INSC 179[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1010
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
A
PADMA MISHRA
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2010)
BFEBRUARY 13, 2020
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.226 – FIR instituted against theappellant under ss.2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Writ petition seekingCquashing of FIR, dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Inproceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution, High Court doesnot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR – TheCourt may only intervene in exceptional cases, if the allegationsmade in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all – In thisDcase, the FIR, in substance, contained the allegation that theappellant and others were taking recourse to public threats andcoercion including physical violence to gang the voices of witnessesin cases against them – Therefore, it cannot be said that theallegations in the FIR did not disclose any act warrantingpenalization under the Gangsters Act – High Court rightly refusedEto quash the FIR under Art.226 of the Constitution – No interferencewith the order of High Court called for – Uttar Pradesh Gangstersand Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – ss.2 and 3.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
FHELD: 1.1 The definition of gangster is made in theGangsters Act and includes any person who is a member or leaderor organizer of a gang or abets or assists in the activities of agang, which includes violence, threat, intimidation, coercion withthe object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undueadvantage for himself or any other person. In the FIR, it isGcategorically stated that the appellant has, along with otherscreated terror, beating and fighting with the common people. TheFIR, in substance, contains the allegation that the appellant andothers are taking recourse to public threats and coercionincluding physical violence to gang the voices of witnesses inHcases against them. [Paras 1, 2][1012-E-F]
1.2. The FIR contains a list of various cases against theappellant pending at the material time when the FIR was lodgedand they included offences under the relevant positions of theI.P.C., including Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section506 (criminal intimidation) Section 504 (provoking breach ofpeace) Section 307 (attempt to murder). It cannot therefore, besaid that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any actwarranting penalization under the Gangsters Act. In proceedingsunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courtdoes not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR.The High Court rightly refused to quash the FIR under Article226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition.[Paras 3, 4, 5][1012-G-H][1013-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2009 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Writ Petition No. 427 of 2009.
Rajesh Sharma, Firoz Saifi, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Advs. for theAppellant.
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia and Krishanam Mishara, Advs. for theRespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. This appeal is against the Order dated 9.06.2009 passed by theHigh Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dismissing writ petition No.427/2009 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for quashing of an FIR instituted against the petitioner being FIRNo.179/2009 under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters andAnti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act,1986, ‘hereinafter referred’ to as“Gangsters Act”.
Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangsters Act define as : “gang”and Gangster.
2(b)‘‘Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singlyor collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, orintimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Page 1 of 3
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Apublic order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulgein anti-social activities.
2(c) ‘‘gangster” means a member or leader or organizer of agang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activitiesBof a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after thecommission of such activities or harbours any person who hasindulged in such activities.
Section 3 of the Gangsters Act provides as follows:
3. “Penalty (1) A gangster, shall be punished with imprisonmentCeither description for a term which shall not be less than twoyears which may extend to ten years and also with fine whichshall not be less than five thousand rupees:
Provided that a gangster who commits an offence againstthe person of a public servant or the person of a member of theDfamily of a public servant shall be punished with imprisonment ofeither description for a term which shall not be less than threeyears and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousandrupees.”
The definition of gangster is made in the Gangsters Act andEincludes any person who is a member or leader or organizer of a gang orabets or assists in the activities of a gang, which includes violence, threat,intimediation, coercion with the object of disturbing public order or ofgoing any undue advantage for himself or any other person.
2. In the FIR it is categorically stated that the appellant has, alongFwith others created terror, beating and fighting with the common people.The FIR, in substance, contains the allegation that the appellant andothers are taking recourse to public threats and coercion including physicalviolence to gang the voices of witnesses in cases against them.
3. The FIR contains a list of various cases against the appellantGpending at the material time when the FIR was lodged and they includedoffences under the relevant positions of the I.P.C., including Section 323(voluntarily causing hurt), Section 506 (criminal intimedation) Section504 (provoking breach of peace) Section 307 (attempt to murder). Itcannot therefore, be said that the allegations in the FIR did not discloseany act warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act.H
PADMA MISHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.[INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]
Page 2 of 3
4. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,the High Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations inan FIR. The Court may only intervene in exceptional cases, if theallegations made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all.
A
5. In our considered opinion, the High Court rightly refused toquash the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissedBthe writ petition.
The Appeal is therefore, dismissed.
Pending application(s) stand disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Appeal dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…