In a landmark decision handed down by the Supreme Court, a significant legal precedent was established regarding the prosecution under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act (“Act”). The court emphasized that to sustain a charge under this act, the prosecution must substantiate that the accused, as a member of a gang, has engaged in activities constituting predicate offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the case, underscored the necessity for the prosecution to explicitly link the accused’s actions to anti-social activities outlined in Section 2(b) of the Act, punishable under relevant sections of the IPC. They reiterated that merely being part of a gang does not suffice; the accused must be directly involved in criminal conduct falling under the specified IPC provisions.
The ruling, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, overturned a prior High Court decision that declined to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant accused. It emphasized that if the accused is absolved of the predicate offences delineated in Section 2(b)(i) of the Act, continued prosecution under the Gangsters Act becomes unjustifiable and constitutes an abuse of judicial process.
The court elucidated Section 2(b)(i), which deems an individual a gang member if found engaging in anti-social activities corresponding to IPC chapters on offences affecting the human body and criminal intimidation, among others. Section 3(1) stipulates penalties for gang membership as defined in Section 2(b).
The case at hand stemmed from an FIR against the appellant accused, purportedly a gang member under Puskal Parag Dubey’s leadership, for various IPC offences. The FIR aimed to curtail the gang’s activities, authorized by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.
The appellant moved to quash the FIR before the High Court, which declined based on a precedent set in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., allowing Gangsters Act prosecution even for a single offence falling under specified anti-social activities.
Arguing before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that since no ongoing prosecution existed for offences meeting the Act’s criteria, continuation of the criminal case was unwarranted and an abuse of judicial process.
Contrarily, the state maintained that the appellant faced prosecution for multiple FIRs involving anti-social offences as per Section 2(b)(i), justifying continued proceedings per the Shraddha Gupta ruling.
The pivotal issue before the apex court was whether to persist with Gangsters Act prosecution following exoneration from predicate offences under Section 2(b)(i).
Upon thorough examination and considering arguments, the Supreme Court sided with the appellant, emphasizing that exoneration from IPC offences rendered Gangsters Act prosecution baseless. Quoting the High Court’s quashing of the FIR related to IPC offences, the court invalidated the foundation for Gangsters Act prosecution, deeming it an abuse of judicial process.
In concurrence with the appellant’s contentions, the court emphasized the necessity for a clear linkage between the accused’s actions and the defined anti-social activities under the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the High Court’s decision and quashed pending criminal proceedings against the accused.
The ruling, encapsulated in the case “FARHANA VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. | Crl.A. No. 001003 / 2024,” sets a significant precedent, ensuring that Gangsters Act prosecution remains tethered to substantiated predicate offences under the IPC.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
