Allowed

Qamar Intekhab and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024A482/18572/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings under the U.P. Gangster Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Farhana. The Court held that where the specific cases cited in the Gang Chart are quashed or result in acquittal, the foundation for the Gangster Act proceedings vanishes, making further prosecution an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and proceedings under U.P. Gangster Act.

Qamar Intekhab and Another vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:127021

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18572 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Qamar Intekhab And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kalim,Rajrshi Gupta,Rizwan Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.04.2023, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 Muzaffarnagar in Special Criminal Case No. 127 of 2019, titled as State v. Qamar Intekhab & Ors, arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2019, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Charthawal, District Muzaffarnagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits the provisions of Gangster Act have been invoked against the applicants on the basis of one cases shown in Gang Chart, i.e. (i) Case Crime No. 69 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3/5/7/9/10 U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998 and Section 8/9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (ii) case crime no.70 of 2019, under Section 3/5 of Arms Act against applicant no.1 and case crime no. 71 of 2019, under Section 27/30 Arms Act against applicant no.2. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants have already been acquitted in the aforesaid proceedings by the

¶9

trial court, therefore, there remain absolutely no basis to initiate and continue the instant proceedings, hence the proceedings of instant case are liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per-contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the application, but could not dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

In the instant case, perusal of record shows that the proceedings under Gangster Act were initiated against the applicants mainly on the basis of aforesaid two criminal cases which in which the applicants have been acquitted by the trial court. The case of the applicants is that as the very basis of initiating proceedings under Gangster Act stand vanished and thus, the impugned proceedings under Gangster Act cannot be continued. At this stage it would be pertinent to mention that recently in case of Farhana Versus State of U. P., SLP (Crl.) No.437 of 2023 , decided on 19.2.2024, the Supreme Court held as under:

¶12

"12. From a bare perusal of Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, it would become apparent that the person alleged to be the member of the gang should be found indulging in anti-social activities which would be covered under the offences punishable under Chapters XVI, or XVII or XXII IPC. There is no dispute that the case set up by the prosecution against the appellants insofar as the offences under the Gangsters Act are concerned, is limited to Section 2(b)(i) reproduced supra and none of the other clauses of the provision have been pressed into service for the proposed prosecution.

¶13

13. Needless to say that for framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by antisocial activities as defined under Section 2(b).

¶14

14. 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 by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vide order dated 3rd March, 2023 passed in Application No. 7228 of 2023.

¶15

15. Hence, 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.

¶16

16. As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, the impugned orders dated 14th November, 2022 and 6th December, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the impugned FIR being Crime Case No.424 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, registered at Police Station- Bhognipur, District- Kanpur Dehat and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the appellants are hereby quashed.

¶17

17. The appeals are allowed accordingly"

¶18

From the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it appears that in aforesaid case the proceedings under Gangster Act were initiated on the basis of two criminal cases, which were quashed by the High Court and it was observed by the Supreme Court that since the very foundation of continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of Gangster Act stand struck off and consequently continuing prosecution of the appellant for offence under Gangster Act is unjustified and tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court. The said case law is squarely applicable to facts of the present case. In the instant matter also, the proceedings of both the cases, on the basis of which impugned proceedings were initiated, have been quashed and thus, the very basis of the impugned proceedings stands vanished and receded. Here it would be relevant to mention that there is no such evidence of any specific incident that the applicant was found indulging in anti-social activities covered under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII, so as to bring them within the purview of Section 2 (b) (i) of the Gangster Act.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, particularly considering the fact that both the criminal cases, on which proceedings under Gangster Act were initiated against the applicant, have already been quashed by

¶20

trial court and considering the aforesaid position of law, the instant criminal proceedings against the applicant for offence under Gangster Act are unjustified and tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court, hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶21

Accordingly, entire proceedings of impugned order dated 24.04.2023, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 Muzaffarnagar in Special Criminal Case No. 127 of 2019, titled as State v. Qamar Intekhab & Ors, arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2019, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Charthawal, District Muzaffarnagar, are hereby quashed.

¶22

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 A. Tripathi

¶24

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶25

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Qamar Intekhab and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qamar Intekhab and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar and Another vs State of Up and Another

Arania Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrika Vishwakarma vs State of Up and Others

Smt Nirmala and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others

Dr Shamsher Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Sri Jagat Prasad Maurya vs State of U.P. and 5 Others