1

            REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20/2010

PADMA MISHRA                                       Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.                        Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

   This appeal is against the Order dated 9.06.2009 passed by the

High  Court  of  Uttarakhand  at  Nainital  dismissing  writ  petition

No.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” 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  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  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.

2

Section 3 of the  Gangsters Act provides as follows:

3.  “Penalty  (1)  A  gangster,  shall  be  punished  with imprisonment 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  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

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.

In the FIR it is 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 cases against them.

The FIR contains a list of various cases against the 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 intimedation) Section 504 (provoking breach of peace)

Section 307 (attempt to murder). It cannot therefore,  be said that

3

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  Court  may  only  intervene  in

exceptional cases, if the allegations made in the FIR  ex facie do

not disclose any offence at all.

In our considered opinion, the High Court rightly refused to

quash the FIR  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

dismissed the writ petition.

The Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

Pending application(s) stand disposed of.

……………………………………...J

   [ INDIRA BANERJEE ]

……….……………………...J      [ ANIRUDDHA BOSE ]

   New Delhi; February, 13 2020

4