Allahabad High Court
Sumit Dubey And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17570 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sumit Dubey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
The supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 11.11.2022, registered as Case Crime No.661 of 2022 under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (in short "the Gangster Act"), P.S. Kotwali Chhibramau, Distt. Kannauj and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that only on the basis of solitary case, the proceeding under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act has been drawn against the petitioners, whereas in the said solitary case they have been accorded anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021, and as such it is submitted that the proceeding under the Gangster Act is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that even though the petitioners had been accorded bail in the aforementioned solitary case and earlier in the said case final report was also submitted but later on further investigation under Section 173 (8) was ordered, wherein supplementary chargesheet has already been submitted. As such it is submitted that no indulgence is required in the present matter. He has further submitted that law is already settled that even against the solitary case proceeding under the Gangster Act may be drawn. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Division Bench in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2019 (Somvir Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) as well as in many judgments by this Court, wherein it is propounded that even a single case, if fulfills the category of offences given under Section 2(b) (i) to (xv) of Act and is being committed by gang defined under Section 2 (b) or gangster defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act may be basis for registration of case crime number for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that based on solitary case, the imposition of Section 3(1) of Gangster Act is not leviable, would have no bearing. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shraddha Gupta Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider as to whether prosecution under the Gangster Act can be initiated against a person even in case of single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
"On a fair reading of the definitions of 'Gang' contained in Section 2(b) and 'Gangster' contained in Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act, a 'Gangster' means a member or leader or organiser of a gang including any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2, who either acting singly or collectively commits and indulges in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) can be said to have committed the offence under the Gangsters Act and can be prosecuted and punished for the offence under the Gangsters Act. There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet. 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...Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the judgments cited above, we are also of the opinion that even on the basis of solitary case the provisions of Gangster Act can be imposed and as such we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 21.11.2022 SP/