Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Vinod Prasad
  • Ajai Kumar Singh, JJ.
Acts
  • section 2/3 of U.P Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act
  • section 2/3 of U.P Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Annexure 1),
  • Act u/S. 2(b) and (c),
  • Section 2(b)(I)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Vinod Prasad
  • Ajai Kumar Singh, JJ.
Acts
  • section 2/3 of U.P Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act
  • section 2/3 of U.P Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Annexure 1),
  • Act u/S. 2(b) and (c),
  • Section 2(b)(I)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Legal Opinion Summary — Udham Singh & Ranjeet Yadav (Writ Petition)

Factual and Procedural Background

Two petitioners, Udham Singh and Ranjeet Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 28-02-2008 (Crime No. 297/2008) registered at Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. They also sought a mandamus restraining respondents from arresting them in connection with that FIR.

The FIR was lodged by the SHO, R.P. Sharma (Incharge Inspector, P.S. Nawabad) alleging that Raghunath alias Batoli Yadav is the leader of a known gang; the petitioners (Ranjeet and Udham Singh) along with others are members. The informant alleged the gang indulged in offences under various chapters of the IPC (Chapter XVI, XVII and XXXII) and listed several specific earlier crimes involving the gang leader and associates, including a murder offence (Crime No. 1223/07) in which the two petitioners were said to be involved. The gang chart was said to have been approved by the Circle Officer, the S.P. (City) and the District Magistrate, Jhansi (noting dated 28-02-2008), and was made part of the FIR.

The writ petition was heard by Vinod Prasad, J., with the petitioners represented by Sri V.C. Mishra, Senior Counsel (assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra) and the State represented by learned AGA. The court heard submissions, considered cited authorities and disposed of the petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the FIR (Crime No. 297/2008) registered under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act can be quashed by writ of certiorari.
  2. Whether an offence under the Gangster Act can be made out on the basis of a single incident or whether multiple incidents are required.
  3. Whether there was necessary "satisfaction" recorded by competent authorities to justify registration under the Gangster Act (in particular, whether the gang chart and its approval sufficed as evidence of satisfaction).
  4. Whether absence of prior criminal history (or limited criminal history) of the petitioners precluded booking them under the Gangster Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as advanced by learned Senior Counsel)

  • On the basis of a single incident, no offence under the Gangster Act can be said to be made out.
  • No satisfaction has been recorded in the impugned FIR regarding existence of a gang and its activities.
  • The petitioners lack a criminal history (save for one murder case referred to); therefore, they cannot be booked under the Gangster Act on the basis of a single incident.
  • Reliance was placed on Subhash v. State of U.P. (1998 All LJ 2092) and State of U.P. v. Phool Mia (1998 (2) ACC 270 : 1998 All LJ 2207).

Respondent/State's Arguments (as advanced by learned AGA)

  • Registration of an FIR is not essential to make out an offence under the Gangster Act; the Act's scheme does not require prior FIR for each input offence before invoking the Act.
  • Only an FIR has been registered so far and investigation is pending; the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences of serious nature.
  • The gang chart has been sanctioned by district authorities after being satisfied of the existence of a gang; hence the FIR should not be quashed and investigation must proceed.
  • The writ petition is without merit and should be dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 (24) ACC 164 : (1987 All LJ 806) (Full Bench) Upheld the vires of the Gangster Act; held that there need not be an overt act at the place of intended apprehension — active complicity with bearing on the crime is sufficient. The court relied on the Full Bench decision to support the proposition that the Act is constitutionally valid and that "active complicity" is a sufficient basis for applying the Act.
Subhash v. State of U.P., 1998 JIC 405 : 1998 All LJ 2092 Interpreted Section 2 and held that the plural "indulges in anti social activities" does not require plurality of actions; a single act covered by the statute can suffice for prosecution under the Act (see para 14). The court treated this decision as negating petitioners' contention that a single incident cannot attract the Act, and held that Subhash does not help the petitioners; it was used to reject the first contention.
State of U.P. v. Phool Mia, 1998 (2) ACC 270 : 1998 All LJ 2207 Authority cited by petitioners (details in the opinion indicate it involved consideration after full trial). The court observed that Phool Mia was rendered after a full trial and therefore was not helpful to the petitioners in the present pre-investigation stage.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by identifying and applying the statutory scheme and prior authorities cited at the bar. The key points of the court's reasoning, based strictly on the opinion, are:

  1. Constitutional and statutory validity: The court noted that the vires of the Gangster Act was upheld by a Full Bench in Ashok Kumar Dixit (1987), which observed that an overt act at the place of intended apprehension is not necessary and "active complicity" suffices. That Full Bench observation was endorsed in Subhash.
  2. Single incident sufficiency: Addressing the petitioners' first contention, the court relied on para 14 of Subhash which explained that the plural phrasing in Section 2 does not require plurality of actions to prosecute under the Act; a single act falling within the statutory description is sufficient. On that basis the court rejected the petitioners' argument that a single incident cannot attract the Act.
  3. Requirement of prior FIR: Under the definition clauses of Section 2(b) and (c) of the Act, the court observed it is not a requirement that an FIR for the "input offence" be previously registered against a person before he can be prosecuted under the Act. Rather, the determinative factor is whether the individual has acted as a member or leader of a gang and indulged in offences enumerated under Section 2(b)(I)–(XV) for undue advantage. Therefore, lack of a prior FIR does not preclude booking under the Act.
  4. Satisfaction of authorities: The court found that the gang chart forms part of the FIR and reflected approval by the Circle Officer, S.P. (City) and the District Magistrate. The presence and perusal of the gang chart were taken as indicative of the satisfaction of the authorities in sanctioning registration under the Act; the court held it could not carve out an exception to that administrative action and thus rejected the contention that no satisfaction was recorded.
  5. Petitioners' criminal history and investigation stage: The court noted that the petitioners were, by their own case, involved in a murder case and that other accused in that murder case were involved in serious offences. The court emphasized that only FIR had been registered so far and investigation was pending; the petitioners could participate in investigation and seek to prove their non-association with any gang. On the material before the court at this stage, it found no basis to conclude the petitioners were not members of a gang.
  6. Precedents' applicability: The court concluded Subhash did not assist the petitioners (because it negated their primary argument) and Phool Mia was inapplicable because it arose after a full trial, a circumstance different from the present pre-investigation context.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The writ petition is dismissed. The court found the petition to be bereft of merit and declined to quash the FIR or restrain arrest.

Implications:

  • The direct effect is that the FIR (Crime No. 297/2008) registered under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 remains operative and the investigation may proceed.
  • The court rejected the specific defenses raised at this stage (single-incident argument; absence of recorded satisfaction; lack of prior FIR) on the basis of statutory interpretation and the cited precedents; the petitioners retain the opportunity to participate in investigation and later proceedings to establish their case.
  • The opinion does not set out any broad new legal principle beyond its application of existing decisions and statutory interpretation to the facts; the order disposes of the petition by dismissal and does not purport to establish a novel precedent in the text of the judgment.

Disposition: Petition dismissed. (Order as recorded by Vinod Prasad, J.)

Show full summary ...

    Udham Singh & Anr. v. State Of U.P & Ors.

    Vinod Prasad, J.:— The two petitioners Udham Singh and Ranjeet Yadav have approached us through the instant writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 28-2-2008 of Crime No. 297/2008, under section 2/3 of U.P Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Annexure 1), to the writ petition. The ancillary prayer is for the mandamus restraining the respondents authorities from arresting the petitioners in connection with the above FIR. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a short narration of the allegations levelled against them are sketched below:—

    2. The State through SHO R.P Sharma, Incharge Inspector, Police Station, Nawabad, district Jhansi, lodged FIR of Crime No. 297/2008, under section 2/3 of U.P Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act on 28-2-2008 at about 10 p.m at P.S Nawabad, district Jhansi in respect of the incidents occurred at different dates and times. The petitioners before us are the malefactors in the aforesaid FIR along with their accomplices. According to the allegations levelled in the FIR, the informant received informations from the various persons of his jurisdiction that Raghunath alias Batoli Yadav s/o Gajraj Yadav, r/o Mustra, P.S Nawabad, district Jhansi has got a known gang of which he is the leader. The two petitioners Ranjeet and Udham Singh along with Bahadur Yadav are the members of his gang, which indulge in commission of penal offences under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXXII of IPC for economical, physical and other benefits singularly or in conjunction with other groups. Because of the activities of the aforesaid gang, general public is not ready to give evidence in court nor can muster the courage to lodge the FIR against them. With the aforesaid allegations the informant was of the opinion that it is essential to proceed against the said gang under the Act and therefore, he lodged the FIR u/S. 2/3 of the Act after getting the gang chart approved by the District Magistrate, Jhansi. Gang chart indicates that above gang leader is involved in four cases of very serious nature. Crime No. 990/90 is u/S. 147, 148, 149 307 IPC, Crime No. 1223/07 is u/S. 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, Crime No. 02/06 is u/S. 395, 397, 427 323, 504 and 506 IPC and NCR No. 11 of 2008 is u/S. 506 IPC. Out of the aforesaid crimes the two petitioners are involved in murder offence vide Crime No. 1223/07. Gang chart further reveals that it has been approved by the Circle Office, S.P (City) as well as District Magistrate Jhansi vide his noting dated 28-2-2008. It is this FIR, which is now being prayed to be quashed through the present writ petition. On such facts, we have heard Sri V.C Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra in support of this writ petition and learned AGA in opposition.

    3. Sri V.C Mishra learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued before us that on the basis of the single incident, no offence under Gangster's Act can be said to be made out. Secondly, he contended that no satisfaction has been recorded in the impugned FIR regarding existence of the gang and indulging into the activities. Lastly, it is canvassed that petitioners do not have any criminal history but for one case of murder, referred to above, and therefore, on the basis of a single incident they cannot be booked under the Gangster's Act. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Subhash v. State of U.P, 1998 JIC 405 : (1998 All LJ 2092) and State of U.P v. Phool Mia, 1998 (2) ACC 270 : (1998 All LJ 2207).

    4. Learned AGA on the other hand contended that for making out the offence under the Act the registration of the FIR is not essential. He further contended that only FIR has been registered and the investigation is yet to take place and since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence of serious nature and the gang chart has been sanctioned by the various district authorities after being satisfied that there is an existence of gang as is mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed and the investigation must take place. He concludingly urged that the writ petition is bereft of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

    5. We have heard the arguments advanced from both the sides and perused two judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Before we advert to the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel some essential indispensable facts and law have to be taken note of.

    6. Gangster's Act was necessitated with a view to control gangsterism and anti social activities of the Gangster. The vires of the Act has been up held by a Full Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P, 1987 (24) ACC 164 : (1987 All LJ 806) vide para 22 thereof. It was held by Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision that “There need not be any overt or positive act of the person intended to be apprehended at the place. It is enough to prove active complicity which has a bearing on the crime”. The aforesaid observation of the Full Bench of this Court has been approved in the case of Subhash: (1998 All LJ 2092) (supra) on which petitioners have placed reliance.

    7. Coming to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of a single incident, the petitioners cannot be booked under the Act, we need to observe only this much that vide para 14 of the aforesaid judgment of Subhash (supra), the said contention has already been negated by the Division Bench of this Court on which decision, reliance has been placed by the petitioners themselves. It has been held in the aforesaid decision of Subhash (supra) as follows:—

    “The words used in Section 2 are no doubt in plural indicating “indulges in anti social activities” but the sentence does not stop with the words “anti social activities”. It goes on with the words “viz” followed by 15 clauses of anti social activities enumerated therein. The plural in “anti social activities” referred to the large number of activities to be brought under the umbrella of this single offence and it would never mean that there must be plurality of actions before a person could be prosecuted or convicted for an offence under the Act. When a specific offence has been created, it is open to be punished even for a single act, if it is covered by the requirements of law. We thus, answered point No. 1 framed by us.”

    8. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, we unhesitatingly hold the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to be unmerited.

    9. There is another aspect of the matter which we would like to discuss. Under the definition clause of the Act u/S. 2(b) and (c), it is not required that the FIR must be registered against the gangster before he is booked under the Act. Sine qua non to prosecute an individual under the Act is commission of an offence as a “gangster”. Gang means a group of persons, who acting either signally or collectively, by violence, or threat or show 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. It is not the requirement of law that nobody can be prosecuted under the Act if no FIR is registered against him. It is the activity of an individual which is the determinative factor for bringing him under the mischief of the Act and nothing else. If he acts as a member or leader of a gang he can be booked under the Act irrespective of any previous FIR being registered against him or not. The plain reading of different definition clauses clearly indicates that if the person indulges into the commission of offence enumerated under Section 2(b)(I) to (XV) as a member or leader of a gang for gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage then he is purviewed within the ambit of the Act and it is not the requirement of law that the FIR for the input offence must be registered before he is booked under the Act. Since the purpose of the Act is to curb the activities of gangster, which are more often than not commit not in any public gaze therefore the provisions of Act have to interpret in a manner which fosters its purpose and the intention of legislature best.

    10. The uproot of the above discussion is that the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is hereby repelled.

    11. Coming to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no satisfaction of the authorities mentioned in the impugned FIR, we say only this much that the gang chart forms the part of the FIR and in the gangs chart it is clearly mentioned that there is a gang, which indulges in to the offences, which are mentioned in the gang chart for the purposes of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage. The perusal of the gang chart by itself is indicative of the satisfaction, which authorities had while sanctioning registration of the FIR under the Act against the petitioners. We cannot carve out any exception of the act of the authorities in forming the said opinion as in our view also existence of gang and indulging into the offences by it mentioned in the gang chart is writ large on the face of the record. In this view of the matter, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also repelled.

    12. Coming to the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not have any criminal history, we need to say only this much that according to the case of the petitioner themselves they are involved in a case of murder. The other accused in that murder case are also involved in many other offences of serious nature. According to the informant's contention this is an act of gang and the petitioners are the members thereof. The said aspect of the matter is yet to be investigated.

    13. Up till now only the FIR has been registered. The petitioners may participate in the investigation and prove their innocence and their non attachment with any gang. Before us there is no material for coming to a conclusion that the petitioners are not the members of a gang which indulge into the commission of cognizable offence of serious nature for gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage.

    14. Coming to the two judgments cited at bar, the decision of Subhash (1998 All LJ 2092) (supra) is of no help to the case of the petitioners at all, as we have discussed above. Another judgment of Phool Mia (supra) cited at the bar is also of no help to the petitioners, as that decision was rendered after a full trial, which is not the case before us.

    15. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that this writ petition is bereft of any merits and hence is hereby dismissed.

    16. Petition dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Udham Singh & Anr. v. State Of U.P & Ors.
    (Mar 26, 2008)