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.
Facts
- 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
Decision
- 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 Title: PADMA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (2020 INSC 179)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000020-000020 / 2010