The Supreme Court has clarified that precise proof of gang members’ involvement in anti-social activities, as per the U.P. Gangsters Act and Indian Penal Code, is required for prosecution. This ruling overturns a previous decision, preventing continued legal proceedings after exoneration in predicate offences.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling concerning the prosecution under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (the “Gangsters Act”). The apex court emphasizes the necessity for the prosecution to establish that the accused, being a member of a gang, engaged in anti-social activities as defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to sustain charges under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Demands Medical Report for NewsClick Founder, Critiques Administration’s Competence
The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, emphasized-
“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).”
This ruling came as the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the High Court which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant accused. Justice Sandeep Mehta, who authored the judgment, pointed out that if the accused is exonerated of the predicate offences under Section 2(b)(i) of the Act, continuing the prosecution under the Gangster Act is unjustified and constitutes an abuse of the court’s process.
The case in question involved an FIR against the appellant accused of being part of a gang led by Puskal Parag Dubey, charged under various provisions of the IPC. The FIR aimed to restrict the gang’s activities, citing a criminal history and was registered with prior approval from the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Notified: Reliance Infrastructure Firm Seeking Train Costs, Not Damages, from DMRC
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny was prompted by an appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of a quashing application, which was based on the precedent set in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., asserting that prosecution under the Gangsters Act could proceed even if the accused was involved in a single offence/FIR/charge-sheet for any antisocial activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act.
The appellant accused argued that the continuation of the criminal case and the charge-sheet filed against them, following the investigation of Case Crime No. 424 of 2022 under the Gangsters Act, was unjustified and an abuse of court process, especially since there was no ongoing prosecution for any offence involving anti-social activities as defined in Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act. The state countered, asserting the accused was prosecuted for multiple FIRs involving anti-social offences as defined under the same section, hence justifying the proceedings under the Gangsters Act.
Upon reviewing the arguments and the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court found merit in the appellant’s contention, especially noting that the appellants had been exonerated for offences under Chapter XVII IPC.
“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,”
-the Supreme Court observed.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Criticizes SpiceJet CMD for Bidding on Go First Despite Unpaid Credit Suisse Debt
