Prosecution U/S 2(b)(i) UP Gangsters Act Cannot Be Continued If FIR Alleging 'Predicate Offences' Gets Quashed: SC
|The Supreme Court observed that prosecution under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986 cannot be continued if the FIR alleging predicate offences is quashed.
In this case, the appellant was a member of a gang led by one Puskal Parag Dubey and an FIR was registered against him to impose restrictions on the activities of the gang.The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act).
Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act stipulates that a person alleged to be a member of a gang would be covered under the offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII IPC if the said person was found indulging in anti-social activities.
The Supreme Court had to ascertain whether the proceedings and prosecution under the Gangsters Act could continue in spite of exoneration in the predicate offences covered by Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “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 covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b).”
Advocate Anurag Singh represented the appellant, while AOR Yasharth Kant appeared for the respondents.
The appellant had argued that because there was no ongoing prosecution for offences involving anti-social activities, the continuation of the proceedings of the criminal case under the Gangsters Act was “absolutely unjustified and tantamounts to abuse of process of the Court.”
The Court stated that the appellant was exonerated for offences under Chapter XVII IPC by the Allahabad High Court.
The Court held, “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 impugned FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed by the Court. The Court also set aside the order of the High Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Farhana v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 118)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anil Kumar Mishra and Advocate Anurag Singh
Respondents: AOR Yasharth Kant and Ankit Goel; Advocate Swati Yadav