Imposition of Gangster Act based on a single case and compliance with Gangster Rules, 2021.

JUDGMENT :

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

3. Present petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. dated 17.12.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 660 of 2022, under Section 3(i) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Gangster Act), Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the gang chart details of only one case have been mentioned, however, simultaneously it is mentioned that two cases are registered against the petitioner. So far as the case referred in the gang chart bearing Case Crime no.7 of 2021 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially F.I.R. was lodged only under Sections 279, 504, 307 IPC against two unknown bike riders wherein during investigation in C.D. No.11 dated 24.01.2021 Mukhbir disclosed the name of the co-accused Manoj Chauhan and Monoj Sahani, who are notorious criminals having no concerned with the petitioner and in correspondence to that Mukhbir information co-accused Manoj Sahani, Manoj Chauhan, Sunil Chauhan and Vikas Pathak were arrested on 31.01.2021 in C.D. No.12 and they have made confession before police and disclosed the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that except aforesaid manner of complicity disclosed by co-accused persons there is no other material evidence collected by investigating officer against the petitioner and as such the investigating officer with addition of section 120B IPC charge-sheeted the accused person. It is next submitted that similarly in another case bearing Case Crime no.255 of 2022, under section 392 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Gorakhpur the petitioner was not named in the FIR and during the course of investigation those co-accused persons arrested and disclosed the name of the petitioner as one of the participants of the alleged incident dated 04.04.2022. However, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur vide order dated 20.09.2022.

5. Arguing the case on merits, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only on the basis of single case as mentioned in the gang chart the provisions of Gangster Act has been imposed against the petitioner and that there is a clear violation of Rule 5 clause (2) and (3) of the Rules framed under the Gangster Act. By placing reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Rahees and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2011 (1) JIC 440 it is submitted that the District Magistrate at no point of time has recorded subjective satisfaction before imposition of provisions of Gangster Act. It is further submitted that on the basis of another first information report, Gangster Act has been imposed, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a businessman and has no concerned with the offence as alleged. Therefore, the impugned first information report under the Gangster Act is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that chargesheet has already been submitted in the base first information report. By drawing attention to the gang chart it is submitted by the learned AGA that the satisfaction has categorically been recorded by the District Magistrate and endorsement dated 17.12.2022 to that effect has been made. It is next submitted that it has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514 that even on the basis of a single case Gangsters Act can be imposed.

7. In the cas