Prosecution under the U.P. Gangsters Act requires clear evidence of anti-social activities; vagueness in allegations leads to quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant for the following main reliefs:-

"That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying an affidavits it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Charge Sheet dated 19.04.2023 bearing Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2023, impugned summoning order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow, relating to F.I.R No./Case Crime No. 117/2022, Under Section-3 (1) U.P Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Vibhutikhand, District-Lucknow, in so far as it relates to the petitioners/applicants as well entire proceeding of the Case No. 3148/2023 (State vs. Ravi Shukla and Others) pending in Court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition, in so far as it relates to the petitioners/applicants in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Case No. 3148/2023 (State vs. Ravi Shukla and Others) pending in Court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow, in so far as it relates to the petitioners/applicants in the interest of justice."

3. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the instant case.

4. He further stated that in F.I.R., in issue, the allegations with regard to disturbing the public order as also regarding gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature against the applicant are vague. Further, stated that in absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of term "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is maintainable. In the instant case, the FIR is based upon the pending criminal case(s) and not upon any new allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Act was enacted.

5. He also stated that the provisions of the Act could not be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts.

6. He also stated that in this case, it appears that the District Administration in order to show good work or to win laurels or seek appreciation from the higher authorities of Government or ruling party has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is unjustified.

7. It is further stated that based upon one criminal case, detailed herein-under, in the gang-chart the proceedings under the Act of 1986 were initiated against the applicants by lodging an F.I.R. No. 0117 of 2022 and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed without having any evidence to attract the offense under the Act of 1986.

(i) Case Crime No. 231 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, District- Lucknow.

8. It is also stated that the proceedings related to above indicated criminal case have already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2024.

9. It is further stated that recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Farhana Vs State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 159 quashed the proceedings related to the provisions of the Act of 1986 on the ground that in the case based upon which proceedings under Act of 1986 were initiated was quashed by the High Court. The relevant paragraphs are as under:-

"12. From a bare perusal of Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, it would become apparent that the person alleged to be the member of the gang should be found indulging in anti-social activities which would be covered under the offences punishable under Chapters XVI, or XVII or XXII IPC. There is no dispute that the case set up by the prosecut