Allahabad High Court
Jivan Lal Singh @ Babloo Patel vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15282 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jivan Lal Singh @ Babloo Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 28.9.2022, registered as Case Crime No.578 of 2022, under section 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that only on the basis of solitary case, the proceeding under Section 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act (for short 'Gangster Act') has been drawn, which is liable to be set aside.
As has been propounded by 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 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 petitioner that based on solitary case, the imposition of Section 2/3 of Gangster Act is not leviable, would have no bearing.
Recently, Division Bench of Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, 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."
In view of the aforesaid dictum, even on the basis of solitary case, the provisions of Gangster Act can be imposed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
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 :- 21.10.2022
S.Prakash
