Allahabad High Court
Nadeem vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Surendra Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4719 of 2023
Petitioner :- Nadeem
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 20.04.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 117 of 2022 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Farah, District- Mathura, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on interim orders granted by this Court in respect of three co-accused, namely, Lukman, Roni @ Rohit and Gaurav Bansal vide orders dated 02.09.2022, 14.06.2022 and 06.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 11498 of 2022, 7348 of 2022 and 6749 of 2022 respectively. He has submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. He has also submitted that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, has been imposed on the basis of single case.
However, we find that a coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8018 of 2022, Kewal Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, vide order dated 30.11.2022 which arises out of the same case crime number. The aforesaid order is quoted hereunder :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 20.04.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 117 of 2022, under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Element Activities Act, 1986, Police Station Farah, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that only on the basis of solitary case, the proceeding under Section 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 petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law. "
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that provisions of Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 6 clause (2) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have not been complied with.
All such aspects have already been considered by this Court in detail in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16983 of 2022, Ambuj Parag Dubey And 2 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, vide order dated 06.12.2022. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to take a different view in the matter.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
KS
