Charge Under UP Gangsters Act Unsustainable When Accused Is Exonerated Of Predicate IPC Offences : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 19) observed that to prosecute the accused under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act (“Act”), the prosecution is required to prove that the accused being a member of the gang should be found indulging in anti-social activities which would be covered under the predicate offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

“Needless to say that for framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences (enshrined under IPC) covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b).”, the Bench Comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta observed.

Reversing the decision of the High Court which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant accused, the Judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that if the accused stands exonerated of the predicate offences covered under Section 2(b)(i) of the Act, then the continued prosecution of the accused for the offence under the Gangster Act is unjustified and tantamount to abuse of the process of Court.

Section 2(b)(i) of the U.P. Gangsters Act, states that the person would be considered a member of the gang if found indulging in anti-social activities which would be covered under the offences punishable under Chapters XVI (Of Offences Affecting Human Body), or XVII (Of Offences Affecting Human Body) or XXII (of criminal intimidation insult and annoyance) of IPC.

Section 3(1) prescribes the penalty for being a member of a gang as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.

Background

In the instant case, the FIR was registered against the appellant accused being a member of a gang led by Puskal Parag Dubey under various provisions of IPC. The FIR narrated that the gang has a criminal history and with a view to impose a restriction on the activities of the gang, the FIR was being registered after obtaining prior approval pertaining to the Gang Chart from the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.

The application was moved by the appellant-accused for the quashing of FIR before the High Court. However, the application was came to be dismissed by the High Court while relying on the Supreme Court Judgment of Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P. wherein it was held that prosecution under the Gangsters Act can be initiated even against the person who is involved in a single offence/FIR/charge-sheet for any of the antisocial activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act.

It is against the said dismissal that the criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant accused before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

It was contended by the appellant accused that there being no on-going prosecution of the appellants for any offence(s) involving anti-social activities as defined in Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, the continuation of the proceedings of the criminal case and the charge-sheet filed against the appellants pursuant to investigation of Case Crime No. 424 of 2022 under the Gangsters Act is absolutely unjustified and tantamount to abuse of process of the Court.

Per contra, it was submitted by the state that the appellant accused was being prosecuted for multiple FIRs involving anti-social offences as defined under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act and hence, the proceedings of the FIR under the Gangsters Act cannot be quashed in light of decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta.

Issue

The short issue presented for adjudication in these appeals is as to whether the proceedings of the FIR under the provisions of the Gangsters Act and the prosecution of the accused can be continued in spite of exoneration in the predicate offences covered by Section 2(b)(i) of Gangsters Act.

Observation

At the outset, after perusing the impugned order of the High Court and arguments canvassed by the parties, the Supreme Court while accepting the contentions submitted by the appellant accused observed that when the appellant accused already stands exonerated for the offences under Chapter XVII IPC, then, the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of the Gangsters Act would serve no purpose and would be abuse of process of court.

“There being no dispute that in the proceedings of the sole FIR registered against the appellants for the offences under Chapter XVII IPC being Crime Case No. 173 of 2019, the appellants stand exonerated with the quashing of the said FIR by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vide order dated 3rd March, 2023 passed in Application No. 7228 of 2023.”

“Hence, the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of the Gangsters Act stands struck off and as a consequence, the continued prosecution of the appellants for the said offence is unjustified and tantamounts to abuse of the process of Court.” The Supreme Court added.

The court noted that for continuing the prosecution under the Gangsters Act, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b).

In light of the aforesaid observation, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and also quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the accused.

Case Details:FARHANA  VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. | Crl.A. No. 001003 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment