ASHFAQ KHAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 01-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-l 
--~ 
I 
• 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 271 
ASHFAQ KHAN AND ANR. 
II. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - FIR lodged -
Writ Petition for quashing of FIR - Dismissed relying on 
decisionldeisions in other writ petitions before High Court - c 
On appeal, held: High Court did not show applicability of ratio 
of the decisions in batch of writ petitions to the present case -
Hence matter remitted to High Court - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss. 420 and 424 - Uttar Pradesh Gangstors and Anti-Social 
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - ss. 2 and 3. 
Appellants filed a writ petition for seeking quashing 
of First Information Report lodged for alleged commission 
D 
of offences punishable u/ss. 420 and 424 IPC and u/ss 2 
and 3 of U.P. Gangstors and Anti-social Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1986. High Court dismissed the writ ,E 
petition placing reliance on its decision in Writ Petition 
No. 10500 of 2005. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: The order of the High Court does not show 
,F 
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. The matter is 
remitted to High Court to consider as to how the facts 
involved in Writ Petition No. 10500 of 2005 and/or the ratio G 
of that decision had any relevance so far as the present 
dispute is concerned. [paras 5 and 6] [273-G; 274-A] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 230 of 2008 . 
271 
H 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 2.3.2006 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. M.W.P. No. 2590/ 
2006. 
Siddhartha Dave and Vibha Datta Makhija for the 
8 
Appellants. 
c 
D 
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Abhishek Choudhry, Manoj 
Kr. Dwivedi, Vandana Mishra, Vibha, G. Venkateswara Rao and 
Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 'FIR') lodged for alleged 
commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 
E 424 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and 
Sections 2 and 3 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short the 'Prevention Act'). The stand 
in the writ petition was that even if the Fl R is taken at its face 
value, there is no scope for holding that the appellants committed 
F 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 
G 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 
H investigation under the Prevention Act. It is also submitted that 
--\.-
1'--· 
)-
' 
.... / 
ASHFAQ KHAN AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND 
273 
ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
If...__~ 
the appellants' case falls within the following parameters and A 
guidelines formulated by the High Court: 
"(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 B 
by filing the charge-sheet or final report, if the accus~d is 
#'t". 
in custody within that period;. 
(b) It is expected that the Special Court will conclude the 
hearing of the cases, where rate of crime is not so higher 
by applying a summary procedure preferably within a c' 
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 D 
file in r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.