Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 13-02-2020 in case of petitioner name Padma Mishra vs State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
| |

Gangsters Act and FIR Quashing: Supreme Court Ruling on Public Order and Penalization

The case of Padma Mishra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. revolves around the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) to the appellant, Padma Mishra, and whether the FIR filed against her could be quashed. The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, addresses issues related to the definition of a ‘gangster’, the scope of the Gangsters Act, and the power of the High Court to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Padma Mishra, challenged the dismissal of her writ petition by the High Court of Uttarakhand. The petition sought the quashing of an FIR filed against her under the Gangsters Act. The FIR alleged that Padma Mishra, along with others, had engaged in acts of violence, coercion, and intimidation aimed at influencing witnesses in cases against them.

The FIR was lodged under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act, which define ‘gang’ and ‘gangster’. Section 2(b) defines a gang as a group of individuals acting collectively with the objective of disturbing public order or gaining undue advantages through violence, coercion, or threats. Section 2(c) defines a gangster as a member, leader, or organizer of such a gang. The FIR listed various charges against Padma Mishra, including voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and attempted murder, among others.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Padma Mishra)

The petitioner raised the following key arguments:

  • The allegations in the FIR did not disclose any offense warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act.
  • The FIR failed to meet the necessary requirements for invoking the Gangsters Act, as the acts did not disrupt public order.
  • The petitioner argued that the FIR should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it did not disclose a cognizable offense.
  • The charges against her were framed in a manner to apply provisions of the Gangsters Act wrongly, despite her being only accused of common criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Uttarakhand)

The respondents, representing the state, argued that:

  • The FIR adequately outlined activities that fell within the scope of the Gangsters Act, as it detailed a series of offenses related to coercion, threats, and violence.
  • The petitioner was part of a gang and had committed multiple criminal activities that disturbed public order.
  • The FIR included evidence that the petitioner and her associates had harbored a gang involved in criminal activities aimed at gaining undue benefits.
  • The High Court had correctly dismissed the writ petition, as it did not have the jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the FIR’s allegations under the Gangsters Act.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court made several important observations regarding the application of the Gangsters Act and the role of the High Court in entertaining petitions under Article 226:

  • The Court emphasized that the Gangsters Act defines a ‘gangster’ broadly, encompassing anyone involved in a group that uses violence, threats, or intimidation to further illegal objectives.
  • The Court ruled that the High Court should not interfere with an FIR under Article 226 unless the allegations did not disclose any offense at all.
  • The Court held that the presence of multiple charges, including those under the IPC, was sufficient to sustain an FIR under the Gangsters Act, as the essence of the offense was the systematic use of force and coercion to intimidate witnesses and gain undue advantage.
  • The Court clarified that the applicability of the Gangsters Act was not restricted to traditional organized criminal activities but also extended to situations involving coercive tactics to influence public order.

Key Judicial Statements

The Court made the following key observations:

“A gang’s existence is not determined by its size but by its unlawful actions with the intent to disrupt public order or gain undue benefits.”

The Court further ruled:

“The High Court should not interfere with an FIR unless it ex facie fails to disclose any offense. It is not within the High Court’s jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the allegations made in an FIR.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissing the appeal upheld the High Court’s order. The Court found that the FIR filed against the appellant clearly outlined offenses covered under the Gangsters Act and that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges.

The ruling confirmed that the High Court had correctly refused to quash the FIR and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public order and preventing organized crime through the legal framework of the Gangsters Act.


Petitioner Name: Padma Mishra.
Respondent Name: State of Uttarakhand & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 13-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Padma Mishra vs State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-02-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts