'Prima Facie Case Made Out': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To 5 Women Of 'Nafisa Gang' Allegedly Involved In Filing False Rape Cases

The Allahabad High Court on Monday refused to quash FIR against and stay the arrest of the 5 women members of the alleged 'Nafisa Gang' which is allegedly involved in filing false rape/SC-ST Act cases against innocent persons for the purpose of extracting money.

The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar observed that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, which requires a detailed investigation to be carried out by the Authorities.

The Court further noted that the petitioners, without exhausting the remedy of seeking anticipatory bail or approaching the Court by way of filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. petition, had taken a recourse to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which wasn't appropriate.

However, the Court said that the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and, thereafter, may file an Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR.

The case in brief

The 5 women accused, booked under Sections 384, 420, 195, 506, 120-B, 211 IPC, had moved the Criminal Writ petition for quashing of the FIR and seeking a stay on their arrest.

It was their case that the FIR against them is nothing but a counterblast of earlier cases, lodged by the petitioners at various points of time against respondent no.4 and other accused persons and only with a view to mounting pressure upon the petitioners and compromise in the earlier matters, present FIR has been lodged.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the alleged 'Nafisa Gang', being guided/protected by the co-accused, namely, Madhav Tiwari, Advocate, is involved in filing several false rape cases to extract money. 

It was also submitted that the issuance of direction for taking no coercive action is also not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others LL 2021 SC 211.

It may be noted that in the Neeharika Infrastructure case (supra), the Top Court had held that the High Court, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India., shall not pass an order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC.

Significantly, it was further submitted that the petitioners, without even approaching the competent Courts for availing the remedy of anticipatory bail, had directly filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the same was not maintainable.

Court's observations

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court noted that in view of the Apex Court's ruling in the Neeharika case (supra), no such orders for not arresting or not taking any coercive action can be passed in the pending investigation into the matter.

"The petitioners are having a remedy to approach the concerning Courts by filing an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, can take a recourse under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. wherein the High Court is having an inherent power for quashment of FIR but in the present case without following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashment of FIR as well as staying the arrest of the petitioners, alleging that the petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed. However, the fact remains that bare perusal of the FIR which has been registered against the petitioners prima facie makes out a cognizable case for which investigation is required in the matter," the Court observed.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that when clearly a case of cognizable offence is made out, no such blanket orders can be passed. The Court also added that the authorities are required to complete an investigation into the matter and persons showing themselves to be innocent person can take recourse under the relevant provisions of criminal law that is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for seeking anticipatory bail in the matter.

In view of this, their plea was dismissed.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Ajatshatru Pandey

Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Srivastava

Case title - Nafisa And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-14344/2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 24

Click Here To Read/Download Order