Allahabad High Court
Rubeena vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3419 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rubeena
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 18.04.2023 being Case Crime No.0166 of 2023 under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the impugned F.I.R. The petitioner is the wife of one Mohd. Rahman, who has also been falsely implicated. The gang chart would show that there is only one case against the petitioner, who is the mother of two children and she has no role to play. No recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that only on the basis of one case that has been mentioned in the gang chart bearing Case Crime No. 0106 of 2023, under Section 411 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya, the proceeding of 'Gangster Act' has been drawn against the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner is bailed out, as such, it is submitted that the proceeding under the Gangster Act is liable to be set- aside.
This Court has perused the F.I.R. It appears that the petitioner being the wife of co-accused Mohd. Rahman has been implicated in the case. This Court also finds that gang chart mentions one case only in which charge-sheet has been filed in the court.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that even though the petitioner has been accorded bail in the case as shown in the gang chart but the law is already settled that even on the basis of 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 two cases, the imposition of Section 2/3 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 to the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
Reena/-
