IMPORTANT POINT
Proceedings of FIR under provisions of Gangsters Act and prosecution of accused cannot be continued in spite of exoneration in predicate offences.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. The appellants-Farhana and Sadarul Islam have filed the instant appeals for assailing the orders dated 14th November, 2022 and 6th December, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 16653 of 2022 and 18326 of 2022 preferred by the appellants respectively, with a prayer to quash the Case Crime No. 424 of 2022 registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986(for short ‘Gangsters Act’) at Police Station-Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat.

4. 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. For the sake of convenience, Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act is quoted hereinbelow:-

“2(b) “Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, 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, indulge in anti-social activities, namely—

(i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, or…..”

5. The FIR impugned before the High Court came to be registered against the appellants at the instance of the inspector in-charge of the Police Station, Kanpur Dehat alleging inter alia that the appellants, being the members of a gang led by Puskal Parag Dubey, were involved in following criminal cases:- (1) Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short ‘IPC’) and (2)Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Sadarul Islam and (3) Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Farhana and, thus, they were liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under the Gangsters Act. The FIR further narrated that the gang has 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.

6. The appellants assailed the aforesaid FIR by way of filing the captioned criminal writ petitions before the High Court on the premise that as on the date of the filing of the FIR, only one case was registered against them and hence, the proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act were liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad considered the ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2022 SCCOnline SC 514 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 and rejected the criminal writ petitions by the impugned orders dated 14th November, 2022 and 6th December, 2022 which have been assailed in the present appeals.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Shraddha Gupta(supra) would not apply to the case of the appellants because in the intervening period, proceedings of both the criminal cases being Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 and Crime Case No. 190 of 2021 have been quashed in the following manner:- (i) Crime Case No. 173 of 2019 registered against both the appellants, namel