CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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.

Latest Legal News