Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hena Naseem vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.14844/2023
HENA NASEEM …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant had invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.15956/2023 for quashing of the FIR dated 28.09.2023 registered in Crime No.557/2023 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station – Kotwali, District – Azamgarh and having suffered a dismissal of the Writ Petition has knocked the doors of this Court reiterating the prayer made in the Writ Petition.
3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we notice that an FIR No.258/2023 was registered against the appellant and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLI two others for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, Date: 2025.08.29 17:02:44 IST Reason: 386 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which had triggered the 1 registration of FIR against petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’). In the said FIR, Mr. Arif has also been arraigned as an accused along with petitioner’s husband.
4. This Court had an occasion to consider the contours of the definition of “gang” as defined under the Act and the circumstances under which a person is said to be indulged in anti-social activity for Section 2(b), which defines the expression “gang” can be invoked. It was held in the matter of Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine 1216 as under:
“18. At this stage, we shall refer to the definition of “gang” as set out in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986. The definition reads thus:
“(b) “Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, namely— […]”
19. Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 should be read alongside Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021, which states as follows:
“3. Conditions of criminal liability.- (1) The offences mentioned in sub sections (i) to (xxv) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act shall be punishable under the Act only if they are:— 2
(a) committed for disturbing public order; or
(b) committed by causing violence or threat or display of violence, or by intimidation, or coercion or otherwise, either singly or collectively, for the purpose of obtaining any unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary or other advantage to himself or to any other person.”
20. The definition of “gang” under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 comprises the following essentials;
i. A group of persons i.e., there can be no gang of one person;
ii. The group of persons, acting either individually or collectively, indulges in anti-social activities as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b); iii. Indulgence in such anti-social activities is by means of violence, or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise; iv. Use of such means is with the object of disturbing public order, or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
21. It is apparent that the definition of the term “gang” is not attracted by mere association with a miscreant group. For such a group to metamorphize into a gang, it must engage in anti-social activities enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), and these must be committed for the object mentioned thereunder. In essence, a group of persons falls within the ambit of Section 2(b) only when the requirements set forth in Rule 3 are satisfied.
22. This Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported as (2022) 19 SCC 57, held that an accused can be termed as “gangster” when he as a member of a gang, has indulged in any of the enumerated anti-social activities, whether by means expressly stated or otherwise, with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“25. A group of persons may act collectively or any one of the members of the group may also act singly, with the object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, who can be 3 termed as “gangster”. A member of a “gang” acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a member of the “gang” and comes within the definition of “gang”, provided he/she is found to have indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act.
xxx
27. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is.
Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge-sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a “gang” and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person and he/she can be termed as “gangster” within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act.” (Emphasis supplied) xxx
25. From the above exposition of law, a group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activity enumerated in clauses (i) to (xvv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise, and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
5. In the background of aforesaid principles laid down by this Court, our attention has been invited to the facts on hand to contend petitioner does not fall in the definition of ‘Gang’ and it is a solitary FIR relating to an immovable property and prima facie it seems to be a family dispute. It 4 would not detain us for too long to arrive at conclusion that the invocation of the Gangsters Act insofar as the appellant is concerned was not warranted. We say so for reasons more than one. Firstly, in the base FIR registered in FIR No.557/2023 under the provisions of the Gangsters Act would indicate that the dispute of cheating or forging of the documents and joining in action for perpetrating such acts was alongwith her husband and Mr. Arif as a ground to invoke Gangsters Act. Surprisingly, FIR No.335/2017 which has been furnished in the list of chart produced by the State also does not implicate the appellant and only refers to her co-
accused, i.e., Arif as an accused in the said FIR. On this short ground itself the invocation of the Gangsters Act insofar as the appellant would not be sustainable. Hence, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court, allow the Writ Petition and quash the FIR No.557/2023 registered under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station – Kotwali, District – Azamgarh only insofar as the present appellant is concerned and making it is explicitly clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the complicity or otherwise of Mr. Arif and Mr. Salman, (the husband of the appellant).
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed, the FIR No.557/2023 dated 28.09.2023 petition alone is quashed and Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent only. We also make it clear that as far as the base FIRs namely FIRs No.258/2023, 675/2023 as well as 335/2017 are concerned, it shall 5 proceed in accordance with law and no opinion on merits of the said FIRs are expressed in these proceedings.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………..................J. (ARAVIND KUMAR) ……………..................J. (N.V. ANJARIA) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 26, 2025.
6 ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.15 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14844/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-10-2023 in CRLMWP No.15956/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] HENA NASEEM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent(s) IA No. 154926/2025 - APPLICATION FOR TAKING ON RECORD IA No. 5456/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 262443/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 68836/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 6216/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 88597/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 236281/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 5455/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 262441/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 68833/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 88586/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 26-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR Ms. Jemtiben Ao, Adv.
Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Srishti Singh, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Sahai, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEHA GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU) 7 SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH) 8