Dismissal of Appeal by Mr. John Doe in Gangsters Act Case

In the case of Mr. John Doe, the High Court has dismissed the appeal related to the FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986. The petition under Article 226 for quashing the FIR was not entertained by the court. Stay tuned for more updates on this legal matter.


  • The High Court refused to quash the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • The writ petition filed under Article 226 for quashing the FIR was dismissed by the High Court.
  • The FIR in question was registered under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986.
  • The definitions of ‘gang’ and ‘gangster’ are provided in Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangsters Act.
  • A ‘gang’ is defined as a group of persons engaging in anti-social activities to disturb public order or gain undue advantage.
  • A ‘gangster’ includes a member, leader, organizer of a gang, or anyone abetting or assisting in the gang’s activities.
  • Section 3 of the Gangsters Act specifies the penalties for gangsters, including imprisonment and fines.
  • The Act aims to deter individuals from participating in violent or illegal activities that disturb public order or seek undue advantage.
  • Appellant along with others created terror, beating and fighting with common people as per FIR
  • Allegation that appellant and others resorted to public threats, coercion and physical violence to silence witnesses
  • List of various pending cases against the appellant mentioned in the FIR including offences under IPC sections 323, 506, 504, 307
  • Allegations in the FIR disclose acts warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act
  • High Court in Article 226 proceedings does not adjudicate the correctness of allegations in an FIR
  • Court may only intervene if allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence at all

Also Read: Analysis of Evidence in an Attempted Murder Case


  • The Appeal filed by Mr. John Doe is dismissed by the court.
  • The court did not find sufficient evidence to support Mr. John Doe’s claims.
  • The decision is final and cannot be appealed further.

Also Read: Ownership Dispute in Motor Vehicle Insurance Case


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000020-000020 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *