The Allahabad High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Anjani Kumar Mishra and Shekhar Kumar Yadav observed that the meaning of ‘gang’ under section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 has two parts and both these parts are mutually exclusive. Each one of the two parts by itself would be enough to bring a case within the ambit of the term Gang. Thus, the sense of interpretation is much broader to ensure public safety and a literal interpretation must not be used. (Pramod Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.)
Facts of the Case
The present cases arose from a private dispute regarding an electricity connection and the petitioner was one of the injured in the cross case. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner in this regard under Sections 307, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and the other case in this regard being case Crime No.386 of 2020.
Admittedly, there is enmity between the parties and it is a case of no injury. The case was taken into cognizance by the district magistrate and an order was passed on the 04th of November 2020. Through this petition, the petitioner aims to quash the FIR report and the order given by the district magistrate on the basis that there was no object of disturbing public order and thus the FIR under the act is baseless.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the facts alleged in the first information report do not make out any violence, threat or show of violence, intimidation, coercion etc. which would amount to disturbing public order. No temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage having been procured by the petitioner, is alleged in the criminal cases lodged against him. Therefore, the requirements of Section 2(b) & 2(b) (viii) of the Act are not made out.
He has further submitted that the impugned FIR under the Gangsters Act is a case of false implication. In any case, the material satisfaction, allegedly recorded by the District Magistrate, while approving the Gang Chart is, without any basis. He further went on to say that the submission on the basis of the aforenoted Section 2(b) is that the criminal cases against the petitioner are not such, which would fall within the scope of the term “disturbing public order”. They might be criminal acts but then every criminal Act cannot be construed as disturbing public order. Since, the public order was not disturbed in the two cases against the petitioner. Gangsters Act has wrongly been invoked. The impugned first information report deserves to be quashed.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench referred to the case of Ashok Dixit Vs. State of U.P. another, 1987, U.P.Crl. R. wherein it was observed, ". . . . public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies that state of tranquillity prevailing among the members of a political society as a result of the internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have instituted. Although Section 9 (1A) refers to "securing the public safety" and "the maintenance of public order" as distinct purposes, it must be taken that "public safety" is used as a part of the wider concept of public order.
The bench after taking note of the contention of the parties went out to analyse the section 2(b) under the act which states that,
(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 of himself of any other person, indulge in anti-social activities,
The bench observed that there are two parts to the definition and the learned counsel for the petitioner had only stressed on the first half of the definition.
The bench futhet observed, “We are of the considered opinion that the definition of a Gang is therefore, clearly in two parts and both are mutually exclusive. Each one of the two parts by itself would be enough to bring a case within the ambit of the term Gang. To clarify further Section 2(b) in our opinion, provides that a group of person, singly or collectively would constitute a gang in either or the two conditions below-
(i) by violence, or thereat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion, or otherwise try to disturb public order, OR
(ii) by violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion or otherwise try to obtain undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
The words " indulge in anti-social activities refer to the various illustrations/ conditions specified thereafter as (i) to (xxv). "
The bench dismissing the petition remarked, "Under the circumstances, the contention that the impugned first information report deserves to be quashed as it does not fall within the purview of the definition of a 'Gang' in Section 2(b) of the Act, cannot be accepted and is hereby, repelled.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner that recovery of the fire arms and empty cartridges from the accused in Case Crime No.286 of 2020 would necessarily show that the said case against the petitioner is one of the false implication, cannot be accepted at this stage. The issue can be decided only after due investigation. In any case, the allegations are that the petitioner interfered in a private dispute between the two parties, with which, he prima facie had no connection. It is, therefore, clearly a case of coercion, intimidation and use of force against a person, who is alleged to have refused to provide electricity to his neighbour, who is stated to be a friend of the petitioner.
In any case, the existence of two criminal cases against the petitioner is not in dispute and therefore, in our considered opinion, no ground exists for quashing the impugned FIR."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
