PADMA MISHRA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Judgment by: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000020-000020 / 2010
Diary number: 17761 / 2009
Advocates: SHALU SHARMA Vs JATINDER KUMAR BHATIA
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20/2010
PADMA MISHRA Appellant(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
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
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.
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
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.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
……….……………………...J [ ANIRUDDHA BOSE ]
New Delhi; February, 13 2020