“Truly A Case Of The Fox Guarding The Henhouse”- Supreme Court Quashes Case Under UP Gangsters Act
The Supreme Court quashed a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 saying that it is a case of the “fox guarding the henhouse.”
The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court which rejected the Application of the accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra remarked, “The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021. Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.”
The Bench reiterated that the recommending, forwarding, and approving authority are not mere rubber-stamping entities.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Garima Prasad appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The proceedings in this case arose out of an FIR which was registered against the Appellant-accused in 2018 at the instance of the Station House Officer (SHO). The FIR alleged that upon visits to certain areas, it was ascertained that the accused, along with a man, constituted an organized gang in terms of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, with the accused acting as its leader. It was further alleged that the gang was adept at committing economic offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the kind, described in Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) respectively for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for themselves by forging documents.
The gang-chart qua the Appellant was purportedly approved by the District Magistrate. Thereafter, in 2023, the non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the accused by the Special Judge. Consequently, the Application seeking recall of the said non-bailable warrants were rejected. The accused assailed the proceedings arising out of the FIR before the High Court. However, his Application was rejected and being aggrieved, he was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “This Court, in catena of decisions, has observed that it is not for the courts to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR at the stage of quashing of the proceedings. However, it is of paramount importance that the allegations made against the accused, if taken at face value, must disclose the commission of an offence, whether from the FIR, the chargesheet, or other relevant materials. It is incumbent upon the courts to exercise their discretionary powers where the materials on record indicate that the criminal proceeding are being misused as instruments of oppression or harassment.”
The Court said that the High Court committed an egregious error in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof qua the Appellant-accused.
“The satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking action under the Act of 1986. It is indispensable for the approving authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, to indicate application of mind before approving the gang-chart. The recording of satisfaction need not be exhaustive, because at the stage of approval the investigation under the Act of 1986 is yet to be conducted, but it must be independent, indicating the reasons justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under the Act of 1986”, it further noted.
The Court emphasised that an independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it is demonstrable from the record that the approving authority has, in letter and spirit, independently considered all the materials that culminated in the preparation and placement of the gang chart before him.
“While the correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the absence thereof certainly does not. A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens”, it added.
The Court also took note of the fact that the said gang-chart was approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete non application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 respectively.
“It cannot be gainsaid that the materials garnered during the investigation only ignite conjectures and surmises, and do not make out a prima facie case to be proceeded against the appellant under the Act of 1986. At the stage of forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the competent authorities are under the obligation to record their satisfaction that a case for action under the Act of 1986 is made out, and the gang-chart and other records should reflect such satisfaction”, it enunciated.
Conclusion
The Court held that the impugned Judgment and consequently, the impugned Order clearly bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court which makes the interference of the Supreme Court necessary.
“We are of a firm view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law”, it said.
The Court, therefore, directed the concerned authorities to adhere to the guidelines and comply to the Checklist in both letter and spirit.
“We are convinced that the continuation of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh will be nothing but abuse of the process of the law”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, and quashed the proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 767)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave and AOR Pallavi Sharma.
Respondents: AAG Garima Prashad, AOR Adarsh Upadhyay, Advocates Amit Singh, Aman Pathak, Pallavi Kumari, and Shashank Pachauri.
