PADMA MISHRAversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

1010                      [2020]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   7 S.C.R. 1010               [2020] 7 S.C.R.


 A                             PADMA MISHRA
                                        v.
                     STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
                         (Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2010)
 B                            FEBRUARY 13, 2020
           [INDIRA BANERJEE AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
             Constitution of India: Art.226 – FIR instituted against the
       appellant under ss.2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-
       Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Writ petition seeking
 C
       quashing of FIR, dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: In
       proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution, High Court does
       not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR – The
       Court may only intervene in exceptional cases, if the allegations
       made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all – In this
 D     case, the FIR, in substance, contained the allegation that the
       appellant and others were taking recourse to public threats and
       coercion including physical violence to gang the voices of witnesses
       in cases against them – Therefore, it cannot be said that the
       allegations in the FIR did not disclose any act warranting
       penalization under the Gangsters Act – High Court rightly refused
 E
       to quash the FIR under Art.226 of the Constitution – No interference
       with the order of High Court called for – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
       and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – ss.2 and 3.
             Dismissing the appeal, the Court
 F       HELD: 1.1 The definition of gangster is made in the
   Gangsters Act and includes any person who is a member or leader
   or organizer of a gang or abets or assists in the activities of a
   gang, which includes violence, threat, intimidation, coercion with
   the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue
   advantage for himself or any other person. In the FIR, it is
 G categorically stated that the appellant has, along with others
   created terror, beating and fighting with the common people. The
   FIR, in substance, contains the allegation that the appellant and
   others are taking recourse to public threats and coercion
   including physical violence to gang the voices of witnesses in
 H cases against them. [Paras 1, 2][1012-E-F]
                                  1010
   PADMA MISHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.                               1011


       1.2. The FIR contains a list of various cases against the             A
appellant pending at the material time when the FIR was lodged
and they included offences under the relevant positions of the
I.P.C., including Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Section
506 (criminal intimidation) Section 504 (provoking breach of
peace) Section 307 (attempt to murder). It cannot therefore, be
                                                                             B
said that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any act
warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act. In proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in an FIR.
The High Court rightly refused to quash the FIR under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition.            C
[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 Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Writ Petition No. 427 of 2009.        D

      Rajesh Sharma, Firoz Saifi, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellant.
     Jatinder Kumar Bhatia and Krishanam Mishara, Advs. for the
Respondents.                                                                 E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
      1. This appeal is against the Order dated 9.06.2009 passed by the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dismissing writ petition No.
                                                                             F
427/2009 filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for quashing of an FIR instituted against the petitioner being FIR
No.179/2009 under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act,1986, ‘hereinafter referred’ to as
“Gangsters Act”.
      Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangsters Act define as : “gang”         G
      and Gangster.
      2(b)‘‘Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly
      or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or
      intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing
                                                                             H
1012             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 7 S.C.R.


 A            public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
              material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge
              in anti-social activities.
              2(c) ‘‘gangster” means a member or leader or organizer of a
              gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities
 B            of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the
              commission of such activities or harbours any person who has
              indulged in such activities.
              Section 3 of the Gangsters Act provides as follows:
              3. “Penalty (1) A gangster, shall be punished with imprisonment
 C            either description for a term which shall not be less than two
              years which may extend to ten years and also with fine which
              shall not be less than five thousand rupees:
                     Provided that a gangster who commits an offence against
              the person of a public servant or the person of a member of the
 D            family of a public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of
              either description for a term which shall not be less than three
              years and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousand
              rupees.”
              The definition of gangster is made in the Gangsters Act and
 E     includes any person who is a member or leader or organizer of a gang or
       abets or assists in the activities of a gang, which includes violence, threat,
       intimediation, coercion with the object of disturbing public order or of
       going any undue advantage for himself or any other person.
              2. In the FIR it is categorically stated that the appellant has, along
 F     with others created terror, beating and fighting with the common people.
       The FIR, in substance, contains the allegation that the appellant and
       others are taking recourse to public threats and coercion including physical
       violence to gang the voices of witnesses in cases against them.
             3. The FIR contains a list of various cases against the appellant
 G     pending at the material time when the FIR was lodged and they included
       offences under the relevant positions of the I.P.C., including Section 323
       (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 506 (criminal intimedation) Section
       504 (provoking breach of peace) Section 307 (attempt to murder). It
       cannot therefore, be said that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose
       any act warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act.
 H
    PADMA MISHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.                                1013
               [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

       4. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,       A
the High Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in
an FIR. The Court may only intervene in exceptional cases, if the
allegations made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all.
       5. In our considered opinion, the High Court rightly refused to
quash the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed     B
the writ petition.
       The Appeal is therefore, dismissed.
       Pending application(s) stand disposed of.

                                                                               C
Devika Gujral                                              Appeal dismissed.




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H