JUDGMENT : 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant-Nisar with the prayer to quash the proceedings as well as charge-sheet dated 07.06.2021 & cognizance order dated 03.09.2021 in Session Trial No. 52 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 352 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mauima, District Prayagraj pending in the Court of Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Allahabad with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicant during the pendency of the present application. 4. The facts in the present case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and 10 other persons for offences u/s 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 with the allegation that the accused persons have formed a gang and are involved in various criminal activities against the public. A gang chart dated 16.02.2020 was prepared by the Sponsoring Officer which finally got approval of the District Magistrate on 29.05.2020. The name of the applicant finds place at serial no.4 in the said gang chart. As per the gang chart, the applicant and the other accused persons are shown to be involved in Case Crime No. 138 of 2017, u/s 302, 120-B, 212, 34 I.P.C. and a charge-sheet no. A-70 dated 21.06.2017, A-70 (B) dated 22.03.2019 have been submitted against the accused persons. The matter went for investigation after which a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant and other accused persons being a total of 05 accused persons u/s 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. It was mentioned in the charge-sheet that the investigation in so far as the other 06 accused persons is pending and further proceedings u/s 14 (1) of the Gangsters Act is also pending. The trial court vide order dated 03.09.2021 took cognizance upon the charge-sheet and summoned the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act have been taken up against the applicant on the basis of a solitary case. The trial court vide order dated 03.09.2021 took cognizance upon the charge-sheet and summoned the accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act have been taken up against the applicant on the basis of a solitary case. It is argued that in the said case which has been shown against the applicant, the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 12.10.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37600 of 2017 (Nisar Ahmad vs. State of U.P.). It is argued that the implication of the applicant which has been shown against him on the basis of which the first information report of the present case has been lodged is a false case and the applicant is not named in the first information report after which his name has come into light in the said case in the statement of Pappu Fakir an eye-witness who was the driver of the deceased. It is argued that the applicant is not a member of any gang. Learned counsel has further argued that co-accused Mohd. Ruksar challenged the proceedings, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance before this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 43408 of 2022 (Mohd. Ruksar vs. State of U.P. and another) in which vide order dated 23.03.2023, he has been granted interim protection. It is argued that as such the applicant is also entitled to protection in the matter. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Tej Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 3239 of 2005 decided on 24.04.2019 and Salim vs. State of U.P. in Application U/S 482 No. 11646 of 2007 decided on 13.08.2019 and has argued that the co-ordinate Benches of this Court have quashed the proceedings with regards to the said accused persons in cases in which they were involved in a solitary case. It is argued that as such the proceedings of the present case be also quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing. 7. It is argued that as such the proceedings of the present case be also quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is an accused named in the first information report along with other persons and further in the charge-sheet which has come after investigation with regards to him and some other accused persons on which cognizance has been taken and they have been summoned by the trial court. The investigation with regards to some other accused persons is pending. In so far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case referred to in the first information report and gang chart on the basis of which the present case has been lodged is concerned, the same cannot be looked into by this Court. Further with regards to the argument that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a solitary case and as such are not maintainable also does not hold good. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ritesh Kumar @ Ricky vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3938 of 2021, decided on 05.08.2021 which was connected with some other petitions took up the matter on the question which was framed therein in paragraph 4 of the said judgment. The same reads as under:- “4. The present bunch of writ petitions along with other writ petitions are connected together on the following question: "Whether a first information report under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the ''Gangsters Act'] can be lodged and is maintainable on the basis of involvement of the petitioner(s) / accused in a single previous case". 8. The question as framed was answered in paragraph 29 of the said judgment that lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case is valid and permissible. It was further held that the court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in the first information report or cases on the basis of which the first information reports have been lodged. Paragraph 29 of the said judgment reads as under:- “29. It was further held that the court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in the first information report or cases on the basis of which the first information reports have been lodged. Paragraph 29 of the said judgment reads as under:- “29. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that barring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4149 of 2021, all the above writ petitions were argued on the common point for which the question as framed, is answered that as per the settled principles of law, the lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case, is valid and permissible. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in the impugned first information reports or the cases on the basis of which the impugned first information reports have been lodged. The writ petitions are thus dismissed.” 9. The Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta vs. The State of U.P. and others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, wherein an order refusing interference in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings under the Gangsters Act was taken up and it was posed for consideration as to whether a person against whom a single first information report / charge-sheet is filed can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act, it was held that such an accused can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act, 1986. Paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the said judgment reads as under:- 6. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether, a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act. In other words, whether a single crime committed by a 'Gangster' is sufficient to apply the Gangsters Act on such members of a 'Gang'. 7. While considering the aforesaid issues/questions, the relevant provisions of the Gangsters Act, 1986 are required to be referred to. The object and purpose of enactment of the Gangsters Act, 1986 is to make special provisions for the prevention of, for coping with, gangsters and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(b) defines 'Gang' and Section 2(c) defines 'Gangster'. The object and purpose of enactment of the Gangsters Act, 1986 is to make special provisions for the prevention of, for coping with, gangsters and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(b) defines 'Gang' and Section 2(c) defines 'Gangster'. Sections 2(b) and 2(c) read as under: "2(b) "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 (Act no. 2 of 1974), namely— (i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act no. 45 of 1860), or (ii) distilling or manufacturing or storing or transporting or importing or exporting or selling or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or narcotics or cultivating any plant, in contravention of any of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act no. 4 of 1910) or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or any other law for the time being in force, or (iii) occupying or talking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting-up false claims for title or possession of immovable property whether in himself or any other person, or (Act no. 61 of 1985) (iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from discharging his lawful duties, or (v) offences punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Art, 1956, or (vi) offences punishable under section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act no. 61 of 1985) (iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from discharging his lawful duties, or (v) offences punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Art, 1956, or (vi) offences punishable under section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act no. 104 of 1956), or (vii) preventing any person from offering bids in auction lawfully conducted, or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf of any Government department, local body or public or private undertaking for any lease or right or supply of goods or work to be done, or (viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any person of his lawful business profession, trade or employment or any other lawful activity connected therewith, or (ix) offences punishable under section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, or in preventing or obstructing any public election being lawfully held, by physically preventing the voter from exercising his electoral rights, or (x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communal harmony, or (xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or (xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or owners or occupiers of public or private undertakings or factories and causing mischief in respect of their properties, or (xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person to go to foreign countries on false representation that any employment, trade or profession shall be provided to him in such foreign country, or (xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with intent to extort ransom, or (xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any aircraft or public transport vehicle from following its scheduled course; (c) "gangster" means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets 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." 7.1 Section 3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986 provides for punishment, which reads as under: "3. (1) A gangster shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years and which may extend to ten years and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees: Provided that a gangster who commits an offence against the person of a public servant of the person of a member of the family of a public servant shall be punished Kith imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, (2) Whoever being a public servant renders any illegal help or support in any manner to a gangster, whether before or after the Commission of any offence by the gangster (whether by himself or through others) or abstains from taking lawful measures or intentionally avoids to carry out the directions of any court or of his superior officers, in this respect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than three years and also with fine." 7.2 Section 5 of the Gangsters Act provides for constitution of Special Courts for the speedy trial of the offences under the Act. Section 6 provides that a Special Court may, if it considers it expedient or desirable so to do, hold its sitting for any of its proceedings at any place, other than the ordinary place of its sitting or seat. Section 8 of the Act provides that when trying any offence punishable under the Gangsters Act, a Special Court may also try any other offence with which the accused may, under any other law for the time being in force, be charged at the same trial. Under Section 9 of the Gangsters Act, the State Government shall appoint a person to be the Public Prosecutor for every Special Court. Section 10 provides that a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence triable by it, without the accused being committed to it for trial upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts. Section 10 provides that a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence triable by it, without the accused being committed to it for trial upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts. Section 12 provides that the trial under the Gangsters Act of any offence by Special Court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused in any other court (not being a Special Court) and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such other case and accordingly the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance. Section 13 of the Gangsters Act provides that where, after taking cognizance of any offence, a Special Court is opinion that the offence is not triable by it, it shall, notwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction to try such an offence, transfer the case for trial of such offence to any other court having jurisdiction under the Code and the court to which the case is transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it has taken cognizance of the offence. 8. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that all provisions are to ensure that the offences under the Gangsters Act should be given preference and should be tried expeditiously and that too, by the Special Courts, to achieve the object and purpose of the enactment of the Gangsters Act. 9. Now so far as the main submission on behalf of the accused that for a single offence/FIR/charge sheet with respect to any of the antisocial activities, such an accused cannot be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, on a fair reading of the definitions of ‘Gang’ and ‘Gangster’ under the Gangsters Act, 1986, it can be seen that a ‘Gang’ is a group of one or more persons who commit/s the crimes mentioned in the definition clause for the motive of earning undue advantage, whether pecuniary, material or otherwise. Even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the ‘Gang’. The definition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked. Even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the ‘Gang’. The definition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked. A group of persons may act collectively or anyone of the members of the group may also act singly, with the object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, who can be termed as ‘Gangster’. A member of a ‘Gang’ acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a member of the ‘Gang’ and comes within the definition of ‘Gang’, provided he/she is found to have indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. 10. On a fair reading of the definitions of ‘Gang’ contained in Section 2(b) and ‘Gangster’ contained in Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act, a ‘Gangster’ means a member or leader or organiser of a gang including any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2, who either acting singly or collectively commits and indulges in any of the antisocial activities mentioned in Section 2(b) can be said to have committed the offence under the Gangsters Act and can be prosecuted and punished for the offence under the Gangsters Act. There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a ‘Gang’ and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, 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 and he/she can be termed as ‘Gangster’ within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act. Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is 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. 10. In view of the law on the subject and facts of the matter, it is clear that an accused can be proceeded against under the Gangsters Act even on the basis of a solitary case. The merits of the case on the basis of which the case under the Gangsters Act has been lodged cannot be seen. The order of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mohd. Ruksar which is being relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant for praying of an interim order on the said ground does not consider the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court and also the judgment of the Apex Court. More so, it is an interim order which is not binding on this Court. 11. The present petition is devoid of any merits, the same is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Office is directed to place a copy of this order in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 43408 of 2022 (Mohd. Ruksar vs. State of U.P. and another) within three weeks from today.