http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  230 of 2008

PETITIONER: Ashfaq Khan and Anr.

RESPONDENT: State of U.P. and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1409 of 2006)

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.         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 \021FIR\022)  lodged for alleged commission of offences punishable under  Sections 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short  the \021IPC\022) and Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short the \021Prevention  Act\022). The stand in the writ petition was that even if the FIR is  taken at its face value, there is no scope for holding that the  appellants committed 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  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 investigation under the Prevention Act. It is also  submitted that the appellants\022 case falls within the following  parameters and guidelines formulated by the High Court:  

\023(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 accused is  in custody within that period;.

(b) It is expected that the Special Court will  conclude the hearing of the cases, where rate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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-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  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 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, it will proceed 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.\024

5.      The order of the High Court does not show 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.        6.      In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the  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.        7.      The appeal is allowed.