Brief Facts
- The FIR was registered against the Appellant accused being a member of a gang which was involved in several criminal cases as enlisted in the FIR. The FIR narrated that the gang has a criminal history and consequently the FIR was registered under section 3(1) of the Gangster Act.
- The application was moved by the appellant-accused for the quashing of FIR before the High Court on the premise that on the date of filing of the petition only one case is pending against the Appellant. However, the application came to be dismissed by the High Court while relying on the Supreme Court Judgment of Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 SCCOnLine SC 514, wherein it was held that prosecution under the Gangsters Act can be initiated even against the person who is involved in a single offence/FIR/charge-sheet for any of the antisocial activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act.
- Aggrieved by the same the Appellant preferred a criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- In the intervening period, even one pending case against the accused was quashed by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the proceedings of the FIR under the provisions of the Gangsters Act and the prosecution of the accused can continue despite his exoneration in the predicate offenses under Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act?
Held
- The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant and quashed and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court resultantly, quashing the impugned FIR.
- 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.
- 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).
- There being no dispute that in the proceedings of the sole FIR registered against the appellants for the offences under Chapter XVII IPC has been quashed by the High Court. 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 tantamount to abuse of the process of Court.
Relevant Paras
- 12,13,14,15,16