JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.K. Mittal, J.—The application has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Special Trial No. 548/03 (Case Crime No. 255/02) under Section 3 Gangsters Act, P.S. Shivpur, pending in the Court of Special Judge Gangsters Act, Varanasi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Deen Dayal filed a First Information Report under Sections 302 and 201 (Crime No. 100/02) at Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi but in that case the applicant was not named as accused. However, he was released on bail in that matter. Deen Dayal further filed First Information Report under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. (Case Crime No. 179/02) at Police Station Chaubeypur, Varanasi on 18.5.2002 and again a First Information Report under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. (Crime No. 245/02) at Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi on 23.8.2002. In these two cases also the applicant is on bail. According to applicant in all these cases Deen Dayal was the complainant and Ashok Kumar Ojha who was the then Station Officer Shivpur Varanasi acting maliciously and under influence of Deen Dayal and one Ravindra Pratap, initiated proceedings under Gangsters Act at Crime No. 255/02, P.S. Shivpur against the applicant. There is no allegation regarding the economic gain or political advantage to have been taken by the applicant. The report under Gangsters Act has been lodged with false and malicious allegation and only to harass the applicant. There is no whisper of activity which may come within the purview of Gangsters Act. During investigation only the statement of Deen Dayal, who is inimical towards the applicant, has been recorded besides the police personnel and as such there is no independent witness against the applicant. Moreover there is nothing in their statements which may show that the offence in question falls within the purview of Gangsters Act. There are only 3 cases, against the applicant which have been shown in the gang chart and in all those 3 cases only one person is the complainant and it shows his mala fide intention. There is no allegation in the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that the applicant was committing any offence for gaining economic profit or political advantage and therefore, there is no case under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. There is no allegation in the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that the applicant was committing any offence for gaining economic profit or political advantage and therefore, there is no case under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that Deen Dayal had made the brother of the applicant accused in all these three matters and at his instance proceedings were also initiated against his brother under Section 3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act at Crime No. 256/02, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further contended that the proceedings in the case against Mahendra Patel the brother of the applicant were quashed by order dated 17th April, 2006 passed by another bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3737/04 (Mahendra Patel v. State of U.P., 2006(4) ADJ 370 (All). On this basis learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the present proceedings are also liable to be quashed as prima facie no offence is made out against the accused under the provision of Section 3(1) of Gangsters Act and further that the applicant is not a gangster and has no gang within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act provides that “Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of 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. Section 2(c) provides that “Gangster” means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who enables or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in Clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities. 4. In the facts of the present case the requirements of gang and gangster as referred above, are not fulfilled and the accused cannot be treated to be a gangster. 5. In the circumstances, the continuance of proceedings against the applicant will amount to abuse of process of Court and therefore, require to be quashed. The application is hereby allowed. 4. In the facts of the present case the requirements of gang and gangster as referred above, are not fulfilled and the accused cannot be treated to be a gangster. 5. In the circumstances, the continuance of proceedings against the applicant will amount to abuse of process of Court and therefore, require to be quashed. The application is hereby allowed. The proceedings in the Special Trial No. 548/03 (Case Crime No. 255/02) before Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Varanasi, against the applicant are hereby quashed. ————