No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

Continued Prosecution Under Gangsters Act Unjustified After Exoneration in Predicate Offences: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Appellants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Farhana versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Focused on whether the prosecution under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) should continue against the appellants after their exoneration in the predicate offences.

Facts and Issues: The appellants, Farhana and Sadarul Islam, were accused of being part of a criminal gang and charged under the Gangsters Act based on alleged involvement in certain offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court of Allahabad had previously quashed the FIRs related to these IPC offences. The key issue was whether the proceedings under the Gangsters Act could persist in the absence of the foundational predicate offences.

Interpretation of Gangsters Act: The Supreme Court scrutinized Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, underscoring that the prosecution must clearly establish involvement in antisocial activities as outlined in the Act.

Impact of Quashing Predicate Offences: The Court 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.” This finding was pivotal in determining the fate of the prosecution under the Gangsters Act.

Justice Mehta’s Analysis: Justice Mehta noted, “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 tantamounts to abuse of the process of Court.”

Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the impugned orders of the High Court, the FIR against the appellants under the Gangsters Act, and all subsequent proceedings. It was held that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act was unjustified following the exoneration of the appellants in the predicate offences.

Date of Decision: 19 February, 2024

Farhana versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Similar News