ASHFAQ KHAN AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

    -l                         [2008] 2 S.C.R. 271

--~
                          ASHFAQ KHAN AND ANR.                               A
                                        II.
                          STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2008)
                              FEBRUARY 1, 2008
                                                                             8
             [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

               Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - FIR lodged -
         Writ Petition for quashing of FIR - Dismissed relying on
         decisionldeisions in other writ petitions before High Court -       c
         On appeal, held: High Court did not show applicability of ratio
         of the decisions in batch of writ petitions to the present case -
         Hence matter remitted to High Court - Penal Code, 1860 -
         ss. 420 and 424 - Uttar Pradesh Gangstors and Anti-Social
         Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - ss. 2 and 3.
                                                                     D
               Appellants filed a writ petition for seeking quashing
         of First Information Report lodged for alleged commission
         of offences punishable u/ss. 420 and 424 IPC and u/ss 2
         and 3 of U.P. Gangstors and Anti-social Activities
         (Prevention) Act, 1986. High Court dismissed the writ ,E
         petition placing reliance on its decision in Writ Petition


I        No. 10500 of 2005. Hence the present appeal.
             Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
         Court, the Court
               HELD: The order of the High Court does not show ,F
         as to how the ratio of the decision in a batch of writ
         petitions disposed of had any application or relevance ,
         so far as the present case is concerned. The matter is
         remitted to High Court to consider as to how the facts
         involved in Writ Petition No. 10500 of 2005 and/or the ratio G
         of that decision had any relevance so far as the present
         dispute is concerned. [paras 5 and 6] [273-G; 274-A]
              CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal

•        No. 230 of 2008 .
                                271                                          H
                                                                         --\.-
    272       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 2 S.C.R.

                                                                            1'--·
A        From the Judgment and final Order dated 2.3.2006 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. M.W.P. No. 2590/
    2006.
        Siddhartha Dave and Vibha Datta Makhija for the
    Appellants.
8
         Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Abhishek Choudhry, Manoj
    Kr. Dwivedi, Vandana Mishra, Vibha, G. Venkateswara Rao and
    Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
          Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division
    Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition
    filed by the appellant.
D
          3. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
        A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court for quashing
  the First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') lodged for alleged
  commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and
E 424 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and
  Sections 2 and 3 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
  (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short the 'Prevention Act'). The stand
  in the writ petition was that even if the Fl R is taken at its face
  value, there is no scope for holding that the appellants committed
F cheating or an offence punishable under the Prevention Act. At
  the most it may make out a case for evasion of tax for which
  action is permissible under the concerned Trade Tax Act.
       4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
  submitted that in the cases referred to, a Division Bench of the
G High Court had disposed of large number of cases involving
  more or less similar prayers to quash the FIR in each case. It is         )-      '


  pointed out that the High Court had categorised different type
  of cases and one of such categories was where no previous
  case was pending under any other law prior to initiation of
H investigation under the Prevention Act. It is also submitted that
       ..../
                 ASHFAQ KHAN AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND                 273
                            ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
If...__~

               the appellants' case falls within the following parameters and     A
               guidelines formulated by the High Court:
                    "(a) It is expected that the investigation will be completed
                    by the police within the prescribed limit under the general
                    law i.e. Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
                    by filing the charge-sheet or final report, if the accus~d is B
                    in custody within that period;.
      #'t".
                    (b) It is expected that the Special Court will conclude the
                    hearing of the cases, where rate of crime is not so higher
                    by applying a summary procedure preferably within a
                    period of 3-6 months from the date of filing the charge-
                                                                                  c'
                    sheet before the Court depending upon the facts and
                    circumstances of each case;
                    (c) In case of pendency of Appeal/Revision/Review by an
                    accused, Special Court will be empowered to split up the D
                    file in respect of other co-accused to avoid delay in hearing
 . ..,.. .          the case;
                    (d) If any person applied or surrendered or produced before
                    the Court in connection with the matters where rate of
-{
                    crime is not higher, the Special Court expeditiously dispose E
                    It of following the principles as laid down in Smt. Amarawati
                    and Anr. vs. State of U.P
                    (e) In case the Special Court found that the crime case is
                    not so negligible nor the rate of crime is lower in nature,
                                                                                  F
                    it will proc.eed strictly in accordance with law;
                    (f) It will be solemn duty of the Special Courts and the
                    police authorities-to follow the guidelines for the sake of
                    investigation viz-a-viz personal liberties."
                     5. The order of the High Court does not show as to how G
  -~           the ratio of the decision in a batch of writ petitions disposed of
               had any application or relevance so far as the present case is

•
--i
               concerned .
                    6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the           H
                                                                    _.,,_
    274       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 2 S.C.R


A impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it to
  consider as to how the facts involved in Writ Petition No.10500
  of 2005 and/or the ratio of that decision had any relevance so
  far as the present dispute is concerned. We make it clear that
  we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
B         7. The appeal is allowed.
    K.K.T.                                      Appeal allowed.




                                                                            •