The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to strictly interpret the provisions of the Gangsters Act to prevent misuse by state authorities and the importance of vigilance before invoking stringent statutes. Additionally, the judgment underscores the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Gangsters Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 3(1) - [2(b), 2(c), 3] - The court discussed the provisions of the Gangsters Act, particularly Section 2(b) and 2(c) defining 'gang' and 'gangster', and Section 3 providing punishment for gangsters. The court emphasized that a person can be prosecuted under Section 3 only if they fall under the definition of 'gangster' involved in anti-social activities as mentioned in Section 2(b)(i) to (xxv) of the Act. The court also highlighted the need to interpret the provisions of the Act strictly to prevent misuse by state authorities. The judgment referenced the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka and emphasized the importance of vigilance before invoking stringent statutes. Additionally, the court referred to the observations in the case of Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India and others, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR registered under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, contending that the impugned FIR failed to mention the specific anti-social activities in which the petitioner was alleged to have indulged, as required for classification as a gangster.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned FIR was illegal as it did not specify the relevant section of the Gangsters Act and failed to mention the anti-social activities justifying the classification of the accused as a gangster. The court quashed the FIR but allowed the respondent authorities to register a new FIR in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the impugned FIR under the Gangsters Act, specifically concerning the failure to mention the relevant section and the specific anti-social activities justifying the classification of the accused as a gangster.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to interpret the provisions of the Gangsters Act strictly to prevent misuse by state authorities and highlighted the importance of vigilance before invoking stringent statutes. Additionally, the court underscored the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned FIR but allowed the respondent authorities to register a new FIR in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 31.10.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No. 307 of 2023, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangsters Act"), P.S. Moonda Pnaday, District Moradabad.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the impugned F.I.R., only Section 3(1) of Gangsters Act was mentioned which is the provision for imposing penalty upon gangsters. However, no other provision is mentioned showing the anti social activities in which the petitioner is alleged to have indulged on account of which the petitioner is being prosecuted as gangster.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered u/s 3(1) Gangsters Act. This Section provides punishment for gangsters. However, Section 2 of Gangsters Act provides anti social activities which form the basis for classifying a person as a gangster. Section 2(b) defines "gang" and Section 2(c) defines "gangster". The definition of "gangster", mentioned in Section 2(c) clearly mentions that the person to be named as gangster must be involved in activities enumerated in Clause (b) of Section 2 of Gangsters Act. Section 2(b), 2(c) and 3 of Gangsters Act are being reproduced as under:-

"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 (Act No. 45 of 1860), or

(ii) distilling or manufacturing or .storing or transporting or importing or exporting or selling or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or narcotics or cultivating any plant, in contravention of any of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910), or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985), or any other law for the time being in force, or

(iii) occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting-up false claims for title or possession of immovable property whether in himself or any other person, or

(iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from discharging his lawful duties, or

(v) offences punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956), or

(vi) offences punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act No. 3 of 1867), or

(vii) preventing any person from offering bids in auction lawfully conducted, or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf of any Government department, local body or public or private undertaking, for any lease or rights or supply of goods or work to be done, or

(viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any person of his lawful business, profession, trade or employment or any other lawful activity connected therewith, or

(ix) offences punishable under Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or in preventing or obstructing any public election being lawfully held, by physically preventing the voter from exercising his electoral rights, or

(x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communal harmony, or

(xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or

(xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or owners or occupiers of public or private undertakings or factories and causing mischief in respect of their properties, or

(xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person to go to foreign countries on false representation that any employment,