Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, JJ.
Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11077 of 2024
Decided On : 03-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Babu Lal Ram, Ramesh Kumar.

An FIR registered under the U.P. Gangster Act without proper legal citation and after a three-year lapse is rendered illegal.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1); U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rule 4(2) - Quashing of FIR - FIR linked to petitioner was filed over three years after charge sheet in base case; failure to cite relevant section of law rendering FIR illegal - Petition allowed, FIR quashed. (Paras 2, 20, 22)

(B) Criminal liability under the Gangster Act - Mere status as a gang member insufficient for liability; connection with anti-social activities required as per Section 2(b). (Paras 15, 73)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenges FIR registered under U.P. Gangster Act over three years post charge sheet in base case, arguing it violates statutory rules by failing to properly categorize the offence.

Findings of Court:
FIR and gang-chart quashed as illegal for not adhering to required legal specifications and guidelines.

Issues: Legality of FIR under the Gangster Act and validity of established guidelines regarding definition of gangster behaviours.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of any direct act of participation in offenses within the stipulated timeframe disallowed naming the petitioner as a gangster. Relevant guidelines remain valid until challenged.

Result: Writ petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. filing of writ petition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding legality of fir and adherence to gangster rules. (Para 3 , 4)
3. questions for determination. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. conditions for gang membership. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. statutory interpretation related to gangster act. (Para 15 , 21)
6. guidelines from asim @ hassim case. (Para 19 , 20)
7. conclusion: fir quashed. (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Arjun Singh Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 29.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 28 of 2024, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli and for a direction to respondents-State not to take coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that from perusal of the gang chart of the impugned FIR, it is clear that the charge sheet in the base case was filed on 20.12.2020 and after that, no case was registered against the petitioner and after more than three years impugned FIR was lodged on 29.02.2024 by approving the gang chart on 14.02.2024 which is in violation of proviso of Rule 4(2) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Gangster Rules’). It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR was registered under Section 3 (1) of the Gangster Act without mentioning the corresponding provision of Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Gangster Act’) on the basis of which he was named a gangster, which is against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Asim @ Hassim vs. State of U.P. and another; 2024 (1) ADJ 125 DB.

4. Per contra, learned counsel AGA for the State has submitted that case of the petitioner does not cover under the proviso of Rules 4(2) of the Gangster Rules, as the same is regarding the offences which do not fall within the purview of the Gangster Act. It is also submitted by learned AGA that so far as contention of counsel for the petitioner that guidelines issued in the judgment of Asim @ Hassim (supra) has been violated is also misconceived because that judgment was already referred to Larger Bench in the case of Dharmendra @ Bhima and another vs. State of U.P. and four others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2024 vide order dated 04.03.2024.

5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, following two questions arise for determination of this case:

(ii) Whether the guidelines issued in Asim @ Hassim (supra) is still valid despite the reference of the same to the Larger Bench in the case of Dharmendra @ Bhima (supra).

6. For determination of the first question, it would be apposite to mention Rule 4 of the Gangster Rules, which is being quoted as under:

(1) Presence at the scene of incident or direct participation in the incident is not necessary: For committing the criminal act defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, if any person organizes the whole gang or abets or aids the gang leader or member of that gang or provides protection and shelter to any such person, with the knowledge that the person in question is a gang leader or member of a gang or involved in committing/aiding/abetting a criminal act, before or after the commission of such activity, then such a person shall also be liable under the provisions of the Act even though the whole gang had not participated in the incident at the time of commission of the said inci