Abdul Wazid State of U.P. and Another v. Reserved on

1. As both the applications arose from the same FIR and in both the applications prayers have been made to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings pending against applicants before the trial court, therefore, both the applications are being disposed off by a common order.

2. Heard Sri S.B. Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant Abdul Wazid, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for applicants in Application U/S 482 No. 32113 of 2023 and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Roopak 2 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 Chaubey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The instant applications have been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 10.05.2023 and charge-sheet dated 27.02.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 648 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur pending against them in the court of Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Saharanpur. Brief facts of the case:-

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 09.04.2022 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act against applicants and one another on the basis of a gang chart. From perusal of the gang chart, it reflects, against applicant Abdul Wazid four cases have been shown, against applicants Javed and Alishan two cases have been shown and against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique one case each has been shown.

5. As per the FIR, co-accused Hazi Iqbal @ Bala was the gang leader and applicants were active members of his gang and applicants Abdul Wazid, Javed, Mohd. Afzal and Alishan are his sons and they indulged in anti social activities and they used to grab the properties including government land and due to their terror, nobody could come forward to depose against them.

6. After registration of the FIR investigation was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet was filed and on 10.05.2023 cognizance was taken. Hence, the instant applications. Submissions advanced on behalf of applicants:

7. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that in the gang chart against applicant Abdul Wazid there are four base cases and against applicants Javed and Alishan there are two cases while against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique one case each have been shown.

8. They further submitted that from the gang chart it reflects, the solitary case shown against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique was of the year 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 504, 506, 447 IPC, Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018. They further submit, after four years these applicants have been made accused in the present case on the basis of above solitary case.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique further submitted that even from the perusal of the FIR of base case shown against them, it could not be reflected that the matter was of such a nature in which provisions of Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act ought to be invoked against them. 3 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025

10. He further submitted that even this Court has quashed the proceedings of the solitary base case shown in the gang chart relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur and order passed by this Court has been annexed along with the instant applications.

11. He further submitted that as proceedings of the solitary base case shown against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique has been quashed, therefore, proceedings pending against them under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act is bad and is liable to be quashed.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants Javed and Alishan submitted that two base cases have been shown in the gang chart against them and proceedings of one base case relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018 Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur has been quashed by this Court and only one base case relates to Case Crime No. 177 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC is pending against them. He next submits, even when they along with other accused challenged the proceedings of that case before this Court vide Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2619 of 2021 then on 19.02.2021 co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to direct that no coercive action shall be taken against them and order passed by this Court has been annexed along with instant applications. He further submits, even from the FIR of the Case Crime No. 177 of 2019 and from the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by this Court, it reflects, said case relates to civil dispute and no criminal offence is made out, therefore, on the basis of such remaining base case proceedings of the instant case pending against them is bad. He next submits, therefore, proceedings of the instant case pending against applicants Javed and Alishan also should not continue as it is an abuse of process of law.

13. He further submits, therefore, proceedings of the present case pending against applicants Javed and Alishan and charge-sheet filed against them are also liable to be quashed.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Abdul Wazid submits, however, four base cases have been shown against him in the gang chart but out of four cases proceeding of one case relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur has been quashed by this Court and in case relates to Case Crime No. 177 of 2019, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur he has been protected by this Court. He further submits, remaining two cases were not of such nature on the basis of which it can be said that applicant committed the offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act.

15. He further submits, even after more than three years from the date of lodgment of the FIRs of the base cases, FIR of the present case has been lodged. 4 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025

16. He further submits, on the basis of base cases pending against applicant it cannot be said that applicant committed the offences by causing violence or threat or by intimidation or coercion or otherwise, therefore, in view of Section 3 of U.P. Gangsters Act provisions of Section U.P. Gangstes Act should not be invoked against him.

17. Learned counsel for applicants further submit, however, till date in the present matter ten prosecution witnesses have been examined and in the charge-sheet there are 15 witnesses but considering the facts of the case on this ground it is not proper to refuse the prayer made by the applicants in the instant applications.

18. They further submits, law is settled that in the interest of justice even at belated stage this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S., if there is abuse of the process of law and considering the fact that after four years from the date of lodgement of the FIRs of base cases, the FIR of the present case was lodged and even in view of Section 3 U.P. Gangsters Act prima facie it appears, no offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act is made out, continuation of the proceedings pending against the applicants is nothing but abuse of process of law.

19. They placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court:- (a) Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor 2013(3) SCC 330 (b) Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1216 (c) Lal Mohd. and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1366 (d) Jai Kishan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 Submissions advanced on behalf of the State:-

20. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that applicants are hardened criminal and they are active members of the gang formed by gang leader Hazi Iqbal @ Bala.

21. He further submits, from the gang chart it reflects, against applicant Abdul Wazid four cases have been shown while against applicant Javed and Alishan two cases each have been shown and against applicant Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique solitary case each has been shown.

22. He further submitted that law is settled that even on the basis of solitary base case provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act can be invoked. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514.

23. He further submitted that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2022 i.e. after more than three years from the date of lodgement of the FIRs of the base cases but it cannot be a ground to quash the charge- sheet and proceedings pending against applicants. 5 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025

24. He further submits, even from the details of the base case(s) shown against the applicants it cannot be said that prima facie no offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangster Act is made out against them.

25. He further submits, however, against the applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique solitary case has been shown in the gang chart and proceedings of solitary base case has been quashed by this Court but trial of the present case is at advance stage and at this stage it is not proper to quash the proceeding of the instant case even on this ground.

26. He further submitted that law is settled that this Court cannot conduct mini trial at this stage. He further submitted that trial of the present case is at advanced stage and out of 15 witnesses of the charge-sheet 10 witnesses have already been examined and therefore this Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. at such belated stage.

27. He placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the Apex Court:- (a) Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2022) 15 SCC 44 (b) Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and others (2013) 10 SCC 627 (c) Manik B Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another SLP (Crl.) No. 2924 of 2023 decided on 07.08.2023. 28. He further submitted that applicant Javed is having criminal history of two cases while applicant Alishan is having criminal history of 27 cases, applicant Mohd. Afzal is having criminal history of 14 cases, applicant Naseem is having criminal history of 8 cases and applicant Rao Laique is having criminal history of 7 cases. He further submitted that even applicant Abdul Wazid is having criminal history of 24 cases and therefore it cannot be said that they are not gangsters.

29. He further submitted that therefore considering the facts of the case, the instant applications filed by the applicants should be dismissed. Analysis:

30. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

31. The instant applications have been moved by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings pending against them related to provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act.

32. The law is settled that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction either under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S. however can quash the charge- sheet and proceedings pending against an accused but such power should be rare and exceptional circumstances with very sparingly used circumspection.

33. In case at hand, from perusal of the FIR and gang chart of the case, it reflects, applicant Abdul Wazid has been made accused in the instant matter 6 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 on the basis of four base cases while applicants Javed and Alishan have been made accused on the basis of two base cases and applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique have been made accused on the basis of a solitary case.

34. Learned counsel for applicants however made number of submissions including the fact that the FIRs of the base cases do not attract the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act and FIR of the present case was lodged after more than three years from the date of lodgment of the FIRs of base cases and therefore according to them charge-sheet filed against applicants and proceedings pending against them are liable to be quashed but from the record, it reflects, trial of the case is at advanced stage and out of 15 witnesses of the charge-sheet 10 witnesses have already been examined by the trial court, therefore, question arises whether at such advance stage of trial, is it proper for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S.

35. The Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for applicants however in para-22 observed "The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well." but from the above observation it could not be either reflected or inferred that even at advance stage of trial this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Emphasis supplied)

36. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 observed that where prosecution evidence is almost complete or after conclusion of the evidence the matter is at stage of argument normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to conclusion as to whether the alleged offences are made out or not.

37. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Gupta (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned AAG after relying upon the judgment of Narinder Singh (supra) observed in paragraph No. 13 as:- "The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor 7 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 will weigh with the court in exercising its power."

38. Therefore, from the above judgments of the Apex Court it is apparent that however even at belated stage of trial, this Court can exercise its power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but normally at such stage of trial this power should not be exercised.

39. Further, law is also settled, while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. this Court neither can conduct mini trial nor can meticulously examined the evidence on record.

40. Therefore, on the basis of above settled position of law it is to analyse whether proceeding pending against applicants can be quashed and therefore it is necessary to analyse the case of each applicants separately.

41. As far as case of applicant Abdul Wazid is concerned, it reflects, out of four base cases shown in the gang chart proceedings of one case has been quashed by this Court but proceedings of three cases are still pending, however, in one case he has been protected by this Court, therefore, considering the fact that trial of the case is at advance stage and out of 15 witnesses of the charge-sheet 10 witnesses have already been examined in the light of the discussions made above in view of this Court neither charge- sheet filed against him nor proceedings pending against him can be quashed.

42. Further, as far as case of applicants Javed and Alishan are concerned out of two cases shown against them in the gang chart proceedings of one case although has been quashed but proceedings of one case is still pending before the trial court though it appears, this Court has directed not to take any coercive action against them but this Court till date has not quashed the proceedings.

43. In view of judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) even on the basis of solitary case provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act can be invoked and as trial of the case is at advance stage and at such advanced stage it is not proper to analyse whether on the basis of remaining base case offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act is made out or not, therefore, in view of this Court even proceedings pending against applicants Javed and Alishan and charge-sheet filed against them cannot be quashed.

44. In view of this Court, trial court should be permitted to decide the case of applicants Abdul Wazid, Javed and Alishan finally on merit and trial court should be allowed to come to the conclusion as to whether alleged offences are made out against them or not.

45. As far as case of applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique are concerned, it is apparent that on the basis of solitary case they have been made accused in the present matter and proceedings of the solitary case shown in the gang chart has already been quashed and therefore it appears 8 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 the foundation of the case has been quashed by this Court.

46. In the case of Farhana Vs. State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 159 FIR of the base case had been quashed but proceedings relate to provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act were pending. Considering this fact the Apex Court in para-15 observed as:- "Hence, the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of the Gangsters Act stands struck off and as a consequence, the continued prosecution of the appellants for the said offence is unjustified and tantamounts to abuse of the process of Court." and quashed the proceedings relates to U.P. Gangsters Act.

47. The Division Bench of this Court also in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17557 of 2024 (Raushan Prakash and another Vs State of U.P. and others) 2024 AHC 167246-DB quashed the FIR of the case relates to the provisions of U.P. Gangster Act after considering the fact that proceedings of predicate offence i.e. base case has been quashed by observing that the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the petitioners under the therefore, continued provisions of Gangsters Act stands stuck off, prosecution unjustified and tantamount of abuse of process of law.

48. Therefore, from the above principle laid down by the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court it reflects where proceedings of the base case shown in the gang chart has either been quashed or case resulted in acquittal then proceeding pending under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act should not be permitted to continue and it should be quashed.

49. Further, however, trial of the present case is at advance stage and at such stage, proceedings pending before trial court normally should not be quashed but in appropriate case where it appears continuation of proceedings will be an abuse of process of law it can be quashed by this Court even at advance stage of trial to secure the ends of justice.

50. As proceedings pending against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique is based on the solitary base case and proceedings of solitary base case have already been quashed therefore, in view of this Court, if proceedings pending against them is not quashed then it will tantamount to abuse of the process of law.

51. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, application filed by applicant Abdul Wazid vide Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 22079 of 2025 (Abdul Wazid Vs. State of U.P. and another) is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

52. As far as Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32113 of 2023 (Javed and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) is concerned, the proceedings with regard to applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique and charge-sheet filed against them are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed and 9 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 therefore, application filed by them stands allowed while application filed by the applicants Javed and Alishan is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Therefore, Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32113 of 2023 (Javed and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) is partly allowed. September 4, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. As both the applications arose from the same FIR and in both the applications prayers have been made to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings pending against applicants before the trial court, therefore, both the applications are being disposed off by a common order.

2. Heard Sri S.B. Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant Abdul Wazid, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for applicants in Application U/S 482 No. 32113 of 2023 and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Roopak 2 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 Chaubey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. The instant applications have been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 10.05.2023 and charge-sheet dated 27.02.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 648 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur pending against them in the court of Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Saharanpur. Brief facts of the case:-

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 09.04.2022 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act against applicants and one another on the basis of a gang chart. From perusal of the gang chart, it reflects, against applicant Abdul Wazid four cases have been shown, against applicants Javed and Alishan two cases have been shown and against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique one case each has been shown.

5. As per the FIR, co-accused Hazi Iqbal @ Bala was the gang leader and applicants were active members of his gang and applicants Abdul Wazid, Javed, Mohd. Afzal and Alishan are his sons and they indulged in anti social activities and they used to grab the properties including government land and due to their terror, nobody could come forward to depose against them.

6. After registration of the FIR investigation was conducted and after investigation charge-sheet was filed and on 10.05.2023 cognizance was taken. Hence, the instant applications. Submissions advanced on behalf of applicants:

7. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that in the gang chart against applicant Abdul Wazid there are four base cases and against applicants Javed and Alishan there are two cases while against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique one case each have been shown.

8. They further submitted that from the gang chart it reflects, the solitary case shown against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique was of the year 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 504, 506, 447 IPC, Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018. They further submit, after four years these applicants have been made accused in the present case on the basis of above solitary case.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique further submitted that even from the perusal of the FIR of base case shown against them, it could not be reflected that the matter was of such a nature in which provisions of Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act ought to be invoked against them. 3 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025

10. He further submitted that even this Court has quashed the proceedings of the solitary base case shown in the gang chart relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur and order passed by this Court has been annexed along with the instant applications.

11. He further submitted that as proceedings of the solitary base case shown against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique has been quashed, therefore, proceedings pending against them under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act is bad and is liable to be quashed.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants Javed and Alishan submitted that two base cases have been shown in the gang chart against them and proceedings of one base case relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018 Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur has been quashed by this Court and only one base case relates to Case Crime No. 177 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC is pending against them. He next submits, even when they along with other accused challenged the proceedings of that case before this Court vide Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2619 of 2021 then on 19.02.2021 co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to direct that no coercive action shall be taken against them and order passed by this Court has been annexed along with instant applications. He further submits, even from the FIR of the Case Crime No. 177 of 2019 and from the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by this Court, it reflects, said case relates to civil dispute and no criminal offence is made out, therefore, on the basis of such remaining base case proceedings of the instant case pending against them is bad. He next submits, therefore, proceedings of the instant case pending against applicants Javed and Alishan also should not continue as it is an abuse of process of law.

13. He further submits, therefore, proceedings of the present case pending against applicants Javed and Alishan and charge-sheet filed against them are also liable to be quashed.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Abdul Wazid submits, however, four base cases have been shown against him in the gang chart but out of four cases proceeding of one case relates to Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur has been quashed by this Court and in case relates to Case Crime No. 177 of 2019, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur he has been protected by this Court. He further submits, remaining two cases were not of such nature on the basis of which it can be said that applicant committed the offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act.

15. He further submits, even after more than three years from the date of lodgment of the FIRs of the base cases, FIR of the present case has been lodged. 4 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025

16. He further submits, on the basis of base cases pending against applicant it cannot be said that applicant committed the offences by causing violence or threat or by intimidation or coercion or otherwise, therefore, in view of Section 3 of U.P. Gangsters Act provisions of Section U.P. Gangstes Act should not be invoked against him.

17. Learned counsel for applicants further submit, however, till date in the present matter ten prosecution witnesses have been examined and in the charge-sheet there are 15 witnesses but considering the facts of the case on this ground it is not proper to refuse the prayer made by the applicants in the instant applications.

18. They further submits, law is settled that in the interest of justice even at belated stage this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S., if there is abuse of the process of law and considering the fact that after four years from the date of lodgement of the FIRs of base cases, the FIR of the present case was lodged and even in view of Section 3 U.P. Gangsters Act prima facie it appears, no offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act is made out, continuation of the proceedings pending against the applicants is nothing but abuse of process of law.

19. They placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court:- (a) Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor 2013(3) SCC 330 (b) Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1216 (c) Lal Mohd. and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1366 (d) Jai Kishan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296 Submissions advanced on behalf of the State:-

20. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that applicants are hardened criminal and they are active members of the gang formed by gang leader Hazi Iqbal @ Bala.

21. He further submits, from the gang chart it reflects, against applicant Abdul Wazid four cases have been shown while against applicant Javed and Alishan two cases each have been shown and against applicant Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique solitary case each has been shown.

22. He further submitted that law is settled that even on the basis of solitary base case provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act can be invoked. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514.

23. He further submitted that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2022 i.e. after more than three years from the date of lodgement of the FIRs of the base cases but it cannot be a ground to quash the charge- sheet and proceedings pending against applicants. 5 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025

24. He further submits, even from the details of the base case(s) shown against the applicants it cannot be said that prima facie no offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangster Act is made out against them.

25. He further submits, however, against the applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique solitary case has been shown in the gang chart and proceedings of solitary base case has been quashed by this Court but trial of the present case is at advance stage and at this stage it is not proper to quash the proceeding of the instant case even on this ground.

26. He further submitted that law is settled that this Court cannot conduct mini trial at this stage. He further submitted that trial of the present case is at advanced stage and out of 15 witnesses of the charge-sheet 10 witnesses have already been examined and therefore this Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. at such belated stage.

27. He placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the Apex Court:- (a) Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2022) 15 SCC 44 (b) Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and others (2013) 10 SCC 627 (c) Manik B Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another SLP (Crl.) No. 2924 of 2023 decided on 07.08.2023. 28. He further submitted that applicant Javed is having criminal history of two cases while applicant Alishan is having criminal history of 27 cases, applicant Mohd. Afzal is having criminal history of 14 cases, applicant Naseem is having criminal history of 8 cases and applicant Rao Laique is having criminal history of 7 cases. He further submitted that even applicant Abdul Wazid is having criminal history of 24 cases and therefore it cannot be said that they are not gangsters.

29. He further submitted that therefore considering the facts of the case, the instant applications filed by the applicants should be dismissed. Analysis:

30. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

31. The instant applications have been moved by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings pending against them related to provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act.

32. The law is settled that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction either under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S. however can quash the charge- sheet and proceedings pending against an accused but such power should be rare and exceptional circumstances with very sparingly used circumspection.

33. In case at hand, from perusal of the FIR and gang chart of the case, it reflects, applicant Abdul Wazid has been made accused in the instant matter 6 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 on the basis of four base cases while applicants Javed and Alishan have been made accused on the basis of two base cases and applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique have been made accused on the basis of a solitary case.

34. Learned counsel for applicants however made number of submissions including the fact that the FIRs of the base cases do not attract the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act and FIR of the present case was lodged after more than three years from the date of lodgment of the FIRs of base cases and therefore according to them charge-sheet filed against applicants and proceedings pending against them are liable to be quashed but from the record, it reflects, trial of the case is at advanced stage and out of 15 witnesses of the charge-sheet 10 witnesses have already been examined by the trial court, therefore, question arises whether at such advance stage of trial, is it proper for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the provisions of 482 Cr.P.C. or 528 B.N.S.S.

35. The Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for applicants however in para-22 observed "The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well." but from the above observation it could not be either reflected or inferred that even at advance stage of trial this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Emphasis supplied)

36. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 observed that where prosecution evidence is almost complete or after conclusion of the evidence the matter is at stage of argument normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to conclusion as to whether the alleged offences are made out or not.

37. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Gupta (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned AAG after relying upon the judgment of Narinder Singh (supra) observed in paragraph No. 13 as:- "The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is the stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor 7 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 will weigh with the court in exercising its power."

38. Therefore, from the above judgments of the Apex Court it is apparent that however even at belated stage of trial, this Court can exercise its power to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but normally at such stage of trial this power should not be exercised.

39. Further, law is also settled, while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. this Court neither can conduct mini trial nor can meticulously examined the evidence on record.

40. Therefore, on the basis of above settled position of law it is to analyse whether proceeding pending against applicants can be quashed and therefore it is necessary to analyse the case of each applicants separately.

41. As far as case of applicant Abdul Wazid is concerned, it reflects, out of four base cases shown in the gang chart proceedings of one case has been quashed by this Court but proceedings of three cases are still pending, however, in one case he has been protected by this Court, therefore, considering the fact that trial of the case is at advance stage and out of 15 witnesses of the charge-sheet 10 witnesses have already been examined in the light of the discussions made above in view of this Court neither charge- sheet filed against him nor proceedings pending against him can be quashed.

42. Further, as far as case of applicants Javed and Alishan are concerned out of two cases shown against them in the gang chart proceedings of one case although has been quashed but proceedings of one case is still pending before the trial court though it appears, this Court has directed not to take any coercive action against them but this Court till date has not quashed the proceedings.

43. In view of judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) even on the basis of solitary case provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act can be invoked and as trial of the case is at advance stage and at such advanced stage it is not proper to analyse whether on the basis of remaining base case offence under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act is made out or not, therefore, in view of this Court even proceedings pending against applicants Javed and Alishan and charge-sheet filed against them cannot be quashed.

44. In view of this Court, trial court should be permitted to decide the case of applicants Abdul Wazid, Javed and Alishan finally on merit and trial court should be allowed to come to the conclusion as to whether alleged offences are made out against them or not.

45. As far as case of applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique are concerned, it is apparent that on the basis of solitary case they have been made accused in the present matter and proceedings of the solitary case shown in the gang chart has already been quashed and therefore it appears 8 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 the foundation of the case has been quashed by this Court.

46. In the case of Farhana Vs. State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 159 FIR of the base case had been quashed but proceedings relate to provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act were pending. Considering this fact the Apex Court in para-15 observed as:- "Hence, the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of the Gangsters Act stands struck off and as a consequence, the continued prosecution of the appellants for the said offence is unjustified and tantamounts to abuse of the process of Court." and quashed the proceedings relates to U.P. Gangsters Act.

47. The Division Bench of this Court also in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17557 of 2024 (Raushan Prakash and another Vs State of U.P. and others) 2024 AHC 167246-DB quashed the FIR of the case relates to the provisions of U.P. Gangster Act after considering the fact that proceedings of predicate offence i.e. base case has been quashed by observing that the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the petitioners under the therefore, continued provisions of Gangsters Act stands stuck off, prosecution unjustified and tantamount of abuse of process of law.

48. Therefore, from the above principle laid down by the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court it reflects where proceedings of the base case shown in the gang chart has either been quashed or case resulted in acquittal then proceeding pending under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act should not be permitted to continue and it should be quashed.

49. Further, however, trial of the present case is at advance stage and at such stage, proceedings pending before trial court normally should not be quashed but in appropriate case where it appears continuation of proceedings will be an abuse of process of law it can be quashed by this Court even at advance stage of trial to secure the ends of justice.

50. As proceedings pending against applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique is based on the solitary base case and proceedings of solitary base case have already been quashed therefore, in view of this Court, if proceedings pending against them is not quashed then it will tantamount to abuse of the process of law.

51. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, application filed by applicant Abdul Wazid vide Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 22079 of 2025 (Abdul Wazid Vs. State of U.P. and another) is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

52. As far as Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32113 of 2023 (Javed and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) is concerned, the proceedings with regard to applicants Mohd. Afzal, Naseem and Rao Laique and charge-sheet filed against them are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed and 9 NA528 No. 22079 of 2025 therefore, application filed by them stands allowed while application filed by the applicants Javed and Alishan is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Therefore, Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32113 of 2023 (Javed and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) is partly allowed. September 4, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad