Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta @ Bablu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 May, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78584-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9072 of 2025
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gupta @ Bablu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Paritosh Malviya, the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) representing the State-respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report dated 19.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0031 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad against the petitioner (Annexure No.1) to this writ petition.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus Commanding/directing the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No.0031 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Neither he is a member of any gang nor has any complexity in the offences narrated in the FIR. The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen of good character and has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and local enmity, in collusion with the police of Police Station Mainathor, District Moradabad. The entire FIR is based solely on the basis of Case Crime No. 289 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 127(6), 238(b), 3(5), 324(6) BNS, wherein the petitioner?s name surfaced only during investigation and he was not originally named in the FIR. He further submits,bare perusal of the FIR reveals that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, yet the police are adamantly trying to arrest him and seek a warrant, violating his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing and defended the registration of the FIR by contending that the offences alleged are grave and fall squarely within the purview of the Gangsters Act, 1986. He has placed reliance on the gang-chart prepared against the petitioners,invoking Rule 22 of the Rules, 2021, submitting that the Act can be applied even in cases where there is only a solitary instance of grave offence. He pointed out that the case relied upon to invoke the Gangsters Act isCase Crime No. 289 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 127(6), 238(b), 3(5), 324(6) BNS, wherein complicity of the petitioner has been found and accordingly the police report was submitted. He further relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, wherein it was categorically held that even a single FIR or charge sheet may suffice to invoke the Gangsters Act provided the elements of anti-social activity as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act are met. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"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."
5. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds it apposite to refer to Rule 22 of the Rules, 2021, which clearly states:
"22. Criminal history not mandatory and sections of the Act can be imposed in the course of investigation- (1) A single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act, and First Information Report may be registered on the basis of a single case i.e., it is not mandatory that any criminal history must be recorded and alleged before registering an offence under the Act.
(2) The Act may also come into force on a single prosecution in certain class of cases, such as -
if it appears that the gang has committed a single offence mentioned in Sections 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397 of the Penal Code out of the offences mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act or sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v), (vii), (x), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx) or (xxi) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, which is presently under investigation, and the offence under this Act is being proved by collected evidence, then along with the criminal act under consideration, the gang-chart should also be approved by the concerned Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate involved in the investigation of the said offence and the provisions of the Act can be imposed while investigating both the offences together in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, the charge-sheet can be sent to the Special Court constituted under the Act."
6. In the present case, it is not disputed that one of the offences forming the base of gangster proceedings is under Section103(1) BNS (302 of IPC), a cognizable and heinous offence expressly mentioned in Rule 22(2). The contention raised by the counsel that multiple FIRs are essential for invocation of the Act stands negated by both statutory language and judicial pronouncements. Hence, we find no merit in the argument that the Gangsters Act has been invoked arbitrarily or illegally in the present matter.
7. In light of the legal position and the specific facts of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The petitioner's claim for quashing the FIR lacks merit and substance.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court for appropriate relief, including bail, which, if filed, shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observations made herein.
9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are confined solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present writ petition and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial court.
Order Date :- 14.5.2025
NLY
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
