Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 176 (ALL)

Vijaya Nand Tewari v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2025
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. 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 prosecution against the appellants insofar as the offences under the Gangsters Act are concerned, is limited to Section 2(b)(i) reproduced supra and none of the other clauses of the provision have been pressed into service for the proposed prosecution. 13. There is no dispute that the case set up by the prosecution against the appellants insofar as the offences under the Gangsters Act are concerned, is limited to Section 2(b)(i) reproduced supra and none of the other clauses of the provision have been pressed into service for the proposed prosecution. 13. Needless to say that for framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b). 14. There being no dispute that in the proceedings of the sole FIR registered against the appellants for the offences under Chapter XVII IPC being Crime Case No. 173 of 2019, the appellants stand exonerated with the quashing of the said FIR by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vide order dated 3rd March, 2023 passed in Application No. 7228 of 2023. 15. Hence, the very foundation for continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of the Gangsters Act stands struck off and as a consequence, the continued prosecution of the appellants for the said offence is unjustified and tantamounts to abuse of the process of Court. 16. As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, the impugned orders dated 14th November, 2022 and 6th December, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the impugned FIR being Crime Case No.424 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, registered at Police Station-Bhognipur, District- Kanpur Dehat and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the appellants are hereby quashed." 10. The cases, basis of pending proceedings under the Act of 1986 against the applicant, mentioned in the gang chart and the fact that the proceedings related to above indicated cases have already been quashed by this Court and also the observation made by the Honb'e Apex Court in the case of Farhana (supra) are not in dispute. 11. The cases, basis of pending proceedings under the Act of 1986 against the applicant, mentioned in the gang chart and the fact that the proceedings related to above indicated cases have already been quashed by this Court and also the observation made by the Honb'e Apex Court in the case of Farhana (supra) are not in dispute. 11. In the similar circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1986 and further, this Court vide orders dated 13.08.2019, 02.12.2023 and 17.01.2024 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 11645 of 2007 (Sartaj vs. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18729 of 2023 (Asim @ Hassim vs. State of U.P. and another) and Application U/s 482 No. 358 of 2024 (Ramesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another) has also quashed the proceedings related to the Act of 1986. 12. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that interference in the matter is required. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3148 of 2023, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 0117 of 2022, under Sections 3(1) of the Act of 1986, Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, District-Lucknow pending before the Court of Special Judge Gangster Act, Lucknow, are hereby quashed. 13. The instant application stands allowed in above terms.