Gujarat High Court
Mohamad Firoz @ Gajni S/O Mohamad Aarif ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1773 of 2021
==========================================================
MOHAMAD FIROZ @ GAJNI S/O MOHAMAD AARIF ANSARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PAWAN A BAROT(6455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR dated 16.07.2018 registered vide C.R. No. I -159/2018 for the offences alleged to have been committed and punishable under sections 143, 147, 452, 323, 506 and 294(b) of IPC read with sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of The Schedule Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Manjalpur Police Station, District: Vadodara City and all consequent proceedings arising there from against the petitioners in the interest of justice;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined investigation or further proceedings in FIR dated 16.07.2018 registered vide C.R. No. I - 159/2018 for the offences alleged to have been committed and punishable under sections 143, 147, 452, 323, 506 and 294(b) of IPC read with sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of The Schedule Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with Manjalpur Police Station, District:
Vadodara City against the petitioners in the interest of justice;
(D) Ad-interim relief in terms of para 8(C) may kindly be granted;"
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has, at the very outset, submitted that an indispensable precondition for invoking the provisions of the GUJCTOC Act is the existence of at least two prior offences registered against the petitioner on earlier occasions. Drawing the attention of this Court to the record, it has been pointed out that the first offence was registered vide C.R. No. I-163 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 114 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Another case, being C.C. No. 68239 of 2015, was instituted, but the same came to be disposed of by the learned trial Court on 28.11.2016, culminating in an order of acquittal.
2.1. It is further urged that the second offence was registered with Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat City, being C.R. No. I-181 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. In such circumstances, it is the emphatic contention of the learned Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined advocate for the petitioner that the essential statutory requirements for registration of the impugned FIR under the GUJCTOC Act remain unfulfilled. Ergo, the very initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is not only vitiated by lack of legal substratum but also constitutes a malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of law.
2.2. It is further submitted that perusing of definition unlawful activity organized crime syndicate defined under Section 2 of the GUJCTOC as well as considering the provisions of Section 3 of the GUJCTOC filing of the FIR is totally malicious Act. Petitioner is not a part of the organized crime sydicate and has never continued the unlawful activity. In the aforesaid circumstance, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted to allow the petition.
3. Per contra, the learned APP, while adverting to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the GUJCTOC Act, submitted that the legislation was enacted as a special statute with stringent provisions for the effective prevention and control of terrorist activities and organized crimes. It is further urged that, in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act, the essential requirement stands satisfied if more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent Court within the preceding ten years and the Court has taken cognizance thereof.
3.1. Drawing the Court's attention to the record, the learned APP Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined submitted that in the instant case, two FIRs had earlier been registered against the petitioner, which culminated in the filing of charge-sheets, upon which the competent Courts had indeed taken cognizance. Since these antecedent FIRs fall within the ten-year span preceding the registration of the present FIR, the statutory mandate under Section 2(c) stands duly fulfilled. It was, therefore, contended that prima facie the petitioner's involvement in "continuing unlawful activity" is established, and his association with an "organized crime syndicate" cannot be ruled out at this stage.
3.2. In light of the aforesaid background, the learned APP urged that no indulgence be shown to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for both sides and have also meticulously perused the record. At the very threshold, it would be apposite to advert to the statutory definitions of "continuing unlawful activity" and "organized crime" as enshrined under the provisions GUJCTOC):-
"continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or more;" undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined and that court has taken cognizance of such offence;"
5. Organized crime is defined in Section 2(e) of the GUJCTOC, which is as under:-
"organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity and terrorist act including extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber crimes having severe consequences, running large scale gambling rackets, human trafficking racket for prostitution or ransom by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means;."
6. It is pertinent to note that the expression "continuing unlawful activity", as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the GUJCTOC Act, contemplates an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on its behalf, in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent Court within the preceding ten years and cognizance thereof has been taken.
7. Likewise, the term "organized crime" under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act denotes any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on its behalf, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined coercion or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, securing undue economic or other advantage, or promoting insurgency.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to advert to the relevant penal provisions of the GUJCTOC Act.
8.1. Section 3(1)(i) prescribes punishment for any person who commits an organized crime, rendering such individual liable to imprisonment for life and also fine of not less than five lakh rupees.
8.2. Section 3(1)(ii) envisages punishment where such organized crime results in the death of any person, in which eventuality the offender is liable to capital punishment or imprisonment for life, together with fine of not less than ten lakh rupees.
8.3. Section 3(2) provides that any person who conspires, attempts, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime shall also be visited with punishment, which may extend to imprisonment for a term not less than five years but which may extend to life, and fine of not less than five lakh rupees.
8.4. Section 3(4) further fastens criminal liability upon any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate, by prescribing punishment with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than five Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined years but which may extend to life, and fine of not less than five lakh rupees.
9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid aspects, upon a close perusal of the FIR, it emerges as self-explanatory and unequivocally reveals that one Mohd. Ashraf Mohd. Ismail Nagori is alleged to be the head of the "Nagori Gang," which is characterized as an organized crime syndicate. The record discloses that either singly or jointly, the said syndicate has indulged in the commission of multiple offences, and a detailed FIR has been lodged against all the accused persons delineating their role in such organized criminal activities.
9.1. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the record reflects that apart from two charge-sheets filed against him under Sections 325 and 307 of the IPC within the preceding ten years, in both of which the competent Court has taken cognizance, he has also been subjected to proceedings under the PASA. Thus, the allegation that the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences as a member of the organized crime syndicate led by the Nagori Gang stands fortified.
10. In this conspectus, the submission canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in one of the cases arising from the charge-sheet under Section 325 IPC, the petitioner stands acquitted, is of no avail. The definition of "continuing unlawful activity" under Section 2(c) of the GUJCTOC Act mandates only that more than one Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined charge-sheet should have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding ten years and that cognizance should have been taken therein. The statute does not predicate the requirement of eventual conviction. It is an admitted position that in both the said cases, cognizance has indeed been taken by the competent Court, thereby satisfying the statutory threshold of "continuing unlawful activity."
11. Further, the allegation that the petitioner is an active member of an organized crime syndicate, namely the Nagori Gang, which has been operating extensively in Surat, stands specifically noted in the FIR.
12. In this regard, reference may profitably be made to a pari materia legislation, namely, the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2023) 20 SCC 408, has comprehensively examined the contours of "continuing unlawful activity," "organized crime syndicate," and "organized crime." The relevant observations made therein, which squarely apply to the present factual matrix, are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
87. The appellants have argued that in the preceding ten years, more than one charge-sheet has not been filed in respect of each of them. This submission does not hold water. It is settled law that more than one charge-sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organised crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate.
88. In Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, a two-Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court, speaking through Ranjana Desai, J. (as the learned judge then was) held that: (SCC OnLine Bom para 37) "37. ... Section 2(1)(d) which defines "continuing unlawful activity" sets down a period of 10 years within which more than one charge-sheet have to be filed.... It is the membership of organised crime syndicate which makes a person liable under McocA. This is evident from Section 3(4) MCCA which states that any person who is a member of an organised crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subject to a minimum of fine of Rs 5 lakhs. The charge under MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the organised crime syndicate commits organised crime i.e. acts of extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic advantage or supremacy, as a member of the crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is in respect of unlawful activities of the organised crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a period of preceding ten years, one charge-sheet has been filed in respect of organised crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the saidcharge-sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of application of MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. The organised crime committed by him will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of the organised crime syndicate. What is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organised crime syndicate. The link with the "organised crime syndicate" is the crux of the term "continuing unlawful activity". If this link is not established, that person cannot be roped in."
13. In the matter of Rameshbhai Vallabhbhai Abhangi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 248922, this Court has observed and held as under:
"11.0. Upon bare perusal of aforesaid provisions it is clear that, to Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined invoke the provisions of GUJCTOC Act, prosecution has to show only that, the petitioner - accused is a member of syndicate or a gang and individual charge- sheet is not necessary and charge-sheet or offences against syndicate must have been registered. Even earlier offence registered against petitioner being I-CR No.221/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC were non- compoundable offences and within three days after registration of the said complaint, though the complainant was hospitalized, he was pressurized and coerced to enter into compromise and on the basis of compromise, proceedings of said FIR being I-CR No.221/2014 were quashed and set aside by the coordinate Bench of this Court. In this regard, the complainant of the said FIR has also given a statement and he is also cited as a witness in the impugned offence. He has stated that, though complainant in the said offence had sustained grievous hurt though under coercion he forced to settle the offence which clearly indicates the involvement and unlawful activity of present petitioner - accused. Even, the petitioner is also member of syndicate and number of witnesses have given statement before the Superintendent of Police and Dy.S.P. supporting the case of prosecution and perusing the investigation papers also it appears that the present petitioner is a member of organized crime syndicate. Considering statements of 24 witnesses including two Advocates (to maintain secrecy, security and interest of witnesses, names of witnesses are not mentioned).
[11.1] Perusing the said statements it further appears that the present petitioner is a member of syndicate and he is close to accused No.1 and accused persons are involved in unlawful activities of syndicate and abetting the unlawful act of syndicate led by accused No.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavitha Lankesh vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 753 (3 Judges' Bench) has been pleased to hold that, the requirement for invocation of offences under Sections 3(1) and sections 3(2) to 3(5) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2020 is that more than two charge-sheets should be having been filed for the specified offences before the competent Court in the previous ten years. Further, it has been held that it applies only to the offence of organized crime punishable under Section 3(1) and not to offences specified in Ss.3(2) to (5) and that too such charge- sheets need to be only qua the organized crime Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined syndicate and not qua individual members and categorically held that, it is not essential that more than three charge-sheets have been filed against a person so named before a competent Court within the preceding period of 10 years and that Court had taken the cognizance of such offence. Hence, on the said ground, quashing of the impugned proceedings is not permissible as said requirement is only for the offences registered only under section 3(4) or in the case wherein to invoke the provision of section 3(1) herein against petitioner alleged that he is associated with syndicate and syndicate as syndicate in involved in unlawful activity.
[11.2] Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (Supra, on the same issue has answered by elaborately discussing and considering the decisions in the case of Kavitha Lankesh (Supra); State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 171 and Govind Sakharam Ubhe vs. State of Maharashtra and has been pleased to hold in paragraph Nos.76 and 77(c) as under:-
*76. The appellants argued that gambling is punishable with a maximum sentence of 2 years and does not, therefore, fall within the scope of MCOCA (which requires the commission of a crime punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more). However, not all the offences punishable under MCOCA have this requirement. The appellants have been charged under the following provisions of MCOCA:
a. Section 3(1) i.e., the offence of committing organized crime requires the accused to have committed a cognizable offence which is punishable with imprisonment of three years or more.
b. One part of Section 3(2) also contains a similar requirement to Section 3(1), namely persons can be accused of conspiring, attempting to commit, advocating, or knowingly facilitating the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime, only if the offence in question is a cognizable one, which is punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. However, those accused of abetting the commission of organized crime need not themselves be charged with committing a cognizable offence Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined punishable with imprisonment of at least three years. They need only be abetting those who are guilty of committing a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years, which offence amounts to an organized crime. The definition of"abet" in Section 2(1)(a) would be applicable in such cases.
c. Section 3(4) provides that any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate is liable to be penalized. The definition of an organized crime syndicate in Section 2(1)(f) indicates that it is necessary to indulge in organized crime to be considered a member. Section 2(1)(e) indicates that persons are said to commit organized crime when they are involved in continuing unlawful activity. Continuing unlawful activity, in turn, means a prohibited activity which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of at least three years.
d. Section 3(5) stipulates that those who hold any property derived or obtained from commission of an organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds are liable to be punished. Once again, the definition of an organized crime requires the commission of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years of more. Hence, Section 3(5) MCCA may be invoked only with respect to offences which are punishable with imprisonment of three years of more.
77(c). More than one charge sheet is not required to be filed with respect to each accused person.
The appellants have argued that in the preceding ten years, more than one charge-sheet has not been filed in respect of each of them. This submission does not hold water. It is settled law that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate.
[11.3] In view of above proposition of law and as per section 2(1)(a) of the GUJCTOC Act, a person abetting an offence is Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1773/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined against those accused for abetting commission of offence crime need not be charged with cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years as abetting an offence is also an offence under Section 2(1)(a) of the GUJCTOC Act. Herein, allegation against accused is of abetment and member of syndicate and hence, argument canvassed by learned Senior Advocate that requirement is more than one charge-sheet for offence punishable with imprisonment of more than 3 years preceding 10 years of promulgation of the GUJCTOC Act for the petitioner is not sustainable."
14. In view of the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra), coupled with the factual conspectus obtaining in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients constituting "continuing unlawful activity" and "organized crime" within the meaning of the GUJCTOC Act stand satisfied. The record unerringly points towards the petitioner's association with the organized crime syndicate led by one Mohd. Ashraf Mohd. Ismail Nagori, and the pendency of charge-sheets wherein cognizance has been taken by competent courts, reinforces the statutory threshold envisaged under Section 2(c) of the Act.
15. Ergo, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The challenge to the invocation of provisions under the GUJCTOC Act is untenable in law as well as on facts. Accordingly, the petition stands DISMISSED. Rule/Notice, if any, is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 26 23:48:58 IST 2025