SHRADDHA GUPTA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS on 26 April 2022

622

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 17 S.C.R.

A

SHRADDHA GUPTA

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 569-570 of 2022)

B

APRIL 26, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act, 1986 – ss. 2 & 3 – A case u/s 147, 304, 504, 323, 506, 120-BIPC was registered against the six accused persons – On furtherCinvestigation and on the basis of the call recordings between theco-accused, the names of the appellant was added as accused inthe case – Thereafter, a gang chart was prepared against theappellant and sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act has been lodged/registered against the appellant – The appellant approached theDHigh Court u/s 482 of CrPC to quash the order and the FIR registeredagainst her u/s 2/3 of Gangster Act – The main contention raisedby the appellant is that she was not named in the FIR and her namehas surfaced in further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C – The HighCourt has dismissed the said writ petition and has refused to quashthe criminal proceedings under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act –EWhether, a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filedfor any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of theGangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act –Held: On perusal of the definitions of ‘Gang’ and ‘Gangster’ underthe Gangsters Act, 1986, a ‘Gang’ is a group of one or more personsFwho commits the crimes mentioned in the definition clause for themotive of earning undue advantage, whether pecuniary, materialor otherwise – Even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficientto implant Gangster Act on such members of the ‘Gang’ – Thedefinition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before theGangsters Act is invoked – There is no specific provision under theGGangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under theMaharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the GujaratControl of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that whileprosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall bemore than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet – Therefore, so farHas the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/chargesheetfor any of the anti- social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of theAct.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1. 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 ororganiser of a gang including any person who abets or assists inthe activities of a gang enumerated inclause (b) of Section 2, whoeither acting singly or collectively commits and indulges in anyof the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) can be saidto have committed the offence under the Gangsters Act and canbe prosecuted and punished for the offence under the GangstersAct. There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control ofOrganized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorismand Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting anaccused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than oneoffence or the FIR/charge sheet. As per the settled position oflaw, the provisions of the statute are to be read and consideredas it is. Therefore, considering the provisions under theGangsters 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 ofa ‘Gang’ and has indulged in any of the anti-social activitiesmentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, byviolence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercionor otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gainingany undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage forhimself 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 GangstersAct. Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned,there can be prosecution against a person even in case of asingle offence/FIR/chargesheet for any of the anti-socialactivities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such ananti- social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence,or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object ofdisturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Apecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any otherperson. [Para 10][635-B-G]

2. In the present case, it is alleged that the main accusedwas a gang leader and who was the mastermind and he hatchedthe criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused includingtheBappellant herein to commit the murder of the deceased S for apecuniary benefit as there was a property dispute going on sincelong between the family members. It is also to be noted that theother co-accused were already charge sheeted/prosecuted forthe offence under the Gangsters Act and therefore the appellantCand the other two co-accused being members of the ‘Gang’ werealso required to be prosecuted for the offences under theGangsters Act also like other co-accused. Therefore, in the factsand circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that no prosecutioncould have been initiated against the appellant-accused for theoffences under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986. [ParaD11][635-H; 636-A-C]

Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police,Ahmedabad City 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 : [1988] 3Suppl. SCR 1081; Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela v.State of Gujarat 2021 SCC onLine Gujarat 1260 -Ereferred to.

Case Law Reference

[1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 1081referred toPara 3.4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealFNos.569-570 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.21964 of2019 and Order and Judgment dated 10.11.2020 in Criminal Misc. ReviewApplication No.2 of 2019.G

Divyesh Pratap Singh, Sanjay Singh, Vikram Pratap Singh, Ms.Shivangi Singh, Ms. Ishita Bedi, Advs. for the Appellant.

Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Prabhat Kumar Rai,Shuvodeep Roy, Shreyas Balaji, Ishaan Borthakur, Advs. for theHRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated27.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad inCriminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 21964 of 2019 and thesubsequent order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Criminal MiscellaneousReview Application No. 2/2019, the original accused, Shraddha Gupta,against whom an FIR has been filed under Section 2/3 of the UttarPradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Gangsters Act, 1986’), has filed thepresent appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

That a written report was made by respondent no.4 herein (originalinformant) on 24.05.2016 to the effect that her sister and her familymembers had previous enmity with the accused persons, namely, (1)Shravan Kumar (husband of the appellant herein), (2) Guddu @Sudhanshu, (3) Munna @ Brajendranth Sharma, (4) Kamal Sharma and(5) Bhure. That on 23.5.2016, her sister Kumari Sadhna Sharma, In-charge, DGC(Crl.) in the Court of the District Judge, Badaun, had goneto the Court on her scooty to pursue the cases on behalf of theGovernment. Bhure and others had a hearing date in the Court of DistrictJudge, Badaun for appearance. At about 5:30 p.m. her sister was returningfrom Badaun to Ujhani, sitting on the rear seat of the scooty being drivenby her servant Bihari. When the scooty reached near Balaji temple, theysaw a car parked near the temple in which all the above-named accusedwere present. The car followed the scooty of her sister Sadhna andwhen she reached near Jiorlia village, the car of the accused rammedinto her sister’s scooty with the result both Sadhna and Behari fell on theroad. Then the accused drove their car towards her sister, stopped itnear Behari and shouted, ‘kill this fellow also otherwise he may alsogive evidence’. The accused, however, ran away on the arrival of thepeople. The incident was witnessed by the passer-by and with their helpBehari took her sister to Badaun hospital in a vehicle. Her sister Sadhnadied in the hospital. The complainant further stated that she had come tothe hospital at 11:00 on getting the information and lost her consciousnesson seeing the dead body of her sister. The autopsy of the deceased wasconducted in the night. When she regained her consciousness, Beharitold her the entire incident. After making arrangements for the last rites A

BC

DE

F

G

H

Aof her sister, she came to the police station to lodge the report. Thecomplainant alleged that she apprehends the association of the formerBJP MLA Yogender Sagar in the entire conspiracy. On the basis of thisreport, a case under Section 147, 304, 504, 323, 506, 120-B IPC wasregistered against the above named six accused persons at P.S. Ujhani,District Badaun, vide Case Crime No. 337/2016 dated 24.05.2016.B

2.1 That subsequently on 27.05.2017, a case under Sections 2/3of the Gangsters Act, 1986 was registered against eight accused personsvide Case Crime No. 268/2017. The charge sheet was filed against thesaid eight accused persons on 26.5.2018 and the cognizance of the samewas taken by the learned Special Judge under the Gangsters Act, BadaunCon 2.7.2018.

2.2 It appears that thereafter on further investigation and on thebasis of the call recordings between the co-accused, handed over to theInvestigating Officer by the complainant, the names of the appellant –Shraddha Gupta, her husband Sharvan Gupta and Kamlesh Sharma, cameDto light and accordingly they were arrayed as accused in Case CrimeNo. 337/2016.

2.3 That in the course of investigation, it also revealed that theappellant – Shraddha Gupta, her husband – Sharvan Gupta and KamleshSharma were also involved in the offence pertaining to the conspiracyEof murder of deceased Sadhna Sharma. Therefore, supplementary chargesheet was also filed against the aforesaid three accused persons, namely,Shraddha Gupta, Sharvan Gupta and Kamlesh Sharma. That subsequently,it was brought to the notice of the Senior Superintendent of Police,Badaun, that the case under the Gangsters Act, 1986 has been registeredFonly against eight accused persons and the charge sheet has been filedagainst eleven accused persons in Case Crime No. 337/2016.

2.4 Thereafter, a gang chart was prepared against the appellantand other two accused, which was sent to the Senior Superintendent ofPolice, District Badaun on 19.03.2019. That thereafter the Joint DirectorG(Prosecution), Badaun granted approval on 1.4.2019 to register a caseagainst the aforesaid three persons under Sections 2/3 of the GangstersAct, 1986. SSP, Badaun, vide communication dated 2.4.2019communicated to the Investigating Officer and accordingly FIR dated27.05.2019 in Case Crime No. 268/2017 under Sections 2/3 of theGangsters Act has been lodged/registered against the appellant and otherHtwo co-accused. Thus, the FIR for the offences under the Gangsters Act has been registered against eleven accused in all (eight accusedcharged earlier and the three accused including the appellant hereincharge sheeted subsequently).

2.5 That the appellant herein filed the present CriminalMiscellaneous Writ Petition No. 21964/2019 before the High Court underSection 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for the followingreliefs:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashthe orders dated 7.6.2019 and 2.4.2019 passed by the respondentno.3;

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari toquash the impugned FIR dated 27.5.2017 as Case Crime No. 268/2017 under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act, P.S. Ujhani, Dist. Badaun,only to the extent of the petitioner;

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamuscommanding respondents no. 2 and 3 not to arrest the petitionerin case Crime No. 268/2017 under Sections 2/3 Gangsters Act,P.S. Ujhani, District Badaun.

2.6 It was the case on behalf of the appellant that she has beenfalsely implicated in the case; she was not named in the FIR; in the FIR,no role has been assigned to her; her name has surfaced in furtherinvestigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.; the Senior Superintendent ofPolice, Badaun maliciously submitted the supplementary gang chartagainst her approved by the District Magistrate, Badaun; that she isneither a gang leader nor a member of the gang being a household lady.It was also the case on behalf of the appellant-accused that solely on thebasis of the single FIR/charge sheet, she cannot be charged for theoffences under the provisions of the Gangsters Act.

2.7 That by the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed thesaid writ petition and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings underSections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. A review application was also filedwhich has also been dismissed.

2.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orderspassed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition under Section 482Cr.P.C. and dismissing the review application, the accused ShraddhaGupta has preferred the present appeals.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

3. Shri Divyesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant has, as such, reiterated what was argued before theHigh Court.

A

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of theBcase, the appellant has been wrongly booked/charged for the offencesunder Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986.

3.2 It is contended that by no stretch of imagination, the appellantcan be said to be a ‘Gangster’ and/or a member of the ‘Gang’. It issubmitted that solely on the basis of a single FIR/charge sheet and thatCtoo with respect to a single murder, the appellant cannot be said to be a‘Gangster’ and/or a member of the ‘Gang’.

3.3 It is submitted that the allegations against the appellant cannotbe said to be in connection with anti-social activities for which she is tobe charged for the offences under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act,1986.D

3.4 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of PiyushKantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, 1989Supp (1) SCC 322, it is submitted that as held by this Court only suchactivity which adversely affect and/or likely to affect the maintenanceEof public order can be said to be an anti-social activity.

3.5 Relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in thecase of Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2021SCConLine Gujarat 1260, it is submitted that as held by the GujaratHigh Court, a single FIR cannot be said to be sufficient for invocation ofFthe preventive statutes.

3.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant-accused that she cannot be implicated in the FIRin question under the Gangsters Act solely on the basis of an isolatedcase. It is contended that the appellant cannot be said to be a habitualoffender and she does not indulge in anti-social activities.G

3.7 That in the present case, as such, the appellant was implicatedin the case on further investigation and by way of supplementary chargesheet. That prior thereto eight persons were already charge sheetedincluding for the offence under the Gangsters Act, 1986 and the learnedSpecial Court took cognizance against eight accused persons. It isH

SHRADDHA GUPTA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

submitted that subsequently, the appellant and other two co-accused areimplicated along with eight accused persons and also charged for theoffences under the Gangsters Act also. It is contended that once theSpecial Court took cognizance against eight persons, thereafter it wasnot open to implicate the present accused, who were charge sheetedsubsequently for the offences under the Gansters Act.

4. The present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri SanjayKumar Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of UttarPradesh and Shri Shuvodeep Roy, learned counsel appearing forrespondent No.4 herein (original informant).

4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the appellant and two other accused are rightly charged forthe offences under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986.

4.2 It is contended that in the present case, the provisions of theGangsters Act are invoked after following due procedure under theGangsters Act and after the gang chart was prepared and the same wasapproved by the higher authority as well as the District Magistrate.

4.3 It is submitted that as such the eight co-accused persons,against whom the earlier charge sheet was filed, were already chargedfor the offences under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act with respect tothe same offence.

4.4 That however after the initial charge sheet was filed againstthe eight accused persons, during the course of further investigation, thenames of the appellant and two other accused persons came to surfaceand therefore they were also arrayed as an accused. It is submitted thattherefore with respect to the same offence, when the other accusedpersons were also charged for the offences under the Gangsters Act,being co-accused and considering the definitions of ‘Gang’ and ‘Gangster’under the Gangsters Act, 1986, the appellant and other two co-accusedwho were charge sheeted subsequently were also required to beprosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act also. It is urgedthat therefore the appellant and other two co-accused are rightly beingprosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act.

4.5 It is submitted that in the present case, it has been revealedthat the father of the appellant Ramindra Nath Sharma had five daughtersand had no son. The deceased Sadhna Sharma was the eldest daughterwhile the complainant Viparna Gaur, respondent no.4 herein is the A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Ayoungest. Late Ramindra Nath Sharma had left behind huge immovableproperties and it was found during investigation that there was a chequeredlitigation amongst the daughters over the division of the properties leftbehind by their father.

4.6 It is submitted that during the course of the investigation, itBhas been revealed that the accused Shraddha Gupta, Sharvan Guptaand Kamlesh Sharma are also involved for the offence pertaining to the conspiracy of the murder of the deceased Sadhna Sharma.

4.7 It is pointed that the main co-accused P.C. Sharma, who is theGang Leader, is a dangerous criminal. He has an organised gang. HeCalong with his accomplices, with the purposes of making pecuniary gainindulges and causes to indulge in offences relating to human body andmurder. It is submitted that all the accused now charge sheeted havejoined hands, connived and hatched the conspiracy to kill the deceasedwith a view to make a pecuniary gain.

D4.8 It is submitted that the appellant herein, being a member ofthe ‘Gang’, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act and isfound to have indulged in anti-social activities, mentioned in Section 2(b)of the Gangsters Act, is also liable to be prosecuted for the offencesunder the Gangsters Act being ‘Gangster’ as defined in Section 2(c) ofthe Gangsters Act.E

4.9 It is contended that even in case of a single FIR/charge sheetbut with respect to anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of theGangsters Act, there can be a prosecution under the Gangsters Act. It isurged that under the Gangsters Act, there is no bar like in the otherstatutes, such as, Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999Fand the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015.

4.10 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents -State has heavily relied upon the various decisions of the High Court ofAllahabad in which the High Court had an occasion to consider a similarissue and had taken the view that considering the provisions of theGGangsters Act, more particularly Sections 2(b) and 2(c), even in case ofa single FIR/charge sheet for the anti-social activities mentioned in Section2(b) of the Gangsters Act, an accused can be prosecuted for the offencesunder the Gangsters Act. (Reference is made to Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No. 2226/2002, titled ‘Vishnu Dayal Vishwanath v. State ofUP’, decided on 15.06.2007; Writ Petition No. 4936/1999, titled ‘RinkuH

SHRADDHA GUPTA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

@ Hukku v. State of U.P.’, decided on 12.1.2000; Application u/s 482No., 32940/2015, titled ‘Mohit Chaudhary v. State of U.P.’, decided on10.12.2015; Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3938/2021, titled‘Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki v. State of U.P.’, decided on 5.8.2021; andCriminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16164/1994, titled ‘Ajay Rai v.State of U.P.’, decided on 22.11.1994).

4.11 Making the above submissions and relying upon the abovedecisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

6. The short question which is posed for the consideration of thisCourt is, whether, a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet isfiled for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of theGangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act. Inother words, whether a single crime committed by a ‘Gangster’ issufficient to apply the Gangsters Act on such members of a ‘Gang’.

7. While considering the aforesaid issues/questions, the relevantprovisions of the Gangsters Act, 1986 are required to be referred to.The object and purpose of enactment of the Gangsters Act, 1986 is tomake special provisions for the prevention of, for coping with, gangstersand anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidentalthereto. 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 singlyor collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, orintimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbingpublic order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, materialor other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge inanti-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 orimporting or exporting or selling or distributing any liquor, orintoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or narcoticsor cultivating any plant, in contravention of any of the provisions A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act no. 4 of 1910) or theNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or anyother law for the time being in force, or

(iii) occupying or talking possession of immovable propertyotherwise than in accordance with law, or setting-up false claimsfor title or possession of immovable property whether in himselfor any other person, or (Act no. 61 of 1985)

(iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant orany witness from discharging his lawful duties, or

(v) offences punishable under the Suppression of ImmoralTraffic in Women and Girls Art, 1956, or

(vi) offences punishable under section 3 of the Public GamblingAct, 1867 (Act no. 104 of 1956), or

(vii) preventing any person from offering bids in auction lawfullyconducted, or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf of anyGovernment department, local body or public or privateundertaking for any lease or right or supply of goods or workto be done, or

(viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any personof his lawful business profession, trade or employment or anyother lawful activity connected therewith, or

(ix) offences punishable under section 171-E of the Indian PenalCode, or in preventing or obstructing any public election beinglawfully held, by physically preventing the voter from exercisinghis electoral rights, or

(x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communalharmony, or

(xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or

(xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or owners or occupiersof public or private undertakings or factories and causingmischief in respect of their properties, or

(xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person to go to foreigncountries on false representation that any employment, tradeor profession shall be provided to him in such foreign country,or

(xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with intent to extortransom, or

(xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any aircraft or publictransport vehicle from following its scheduled course;

(c) “gangster” means a member or leader or organiser of a gangand includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of agang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after thecommission of such activities or harbours any person who hasindulged 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 eitherdescription for a term which shall not be less than two years andwhich may extend to ten years and also with fine which shall notbe less than five thousand rupees:

Provided that a gangster who commits an offence against theperson of a public servant of the person of a member of thefamily of a public servant shall be punished Kith imprisonmentof either description for a term which shall not be less thanthree years and also with fine which shall not be less than fivethousand rupees,

(2) Whoever being a public servant renders any illegal help orsupport in any manner to a gangster, whether before or afterthe Commission of any offence by the gangster (whether byhimself or through others) or abstains from taking lawfulmeasures or intentionally avoids to carry out the directions ofany court or of his superior officers, in this respect, shall bepunished with imprisonment of either description for a termwhich may extend to ten years but shall not be less than threeyears and also with fine.”

7.2 Section 5 of the Gangsters Act provides for constitution ofSpecial Courts for the speedy trial of the offences under the Act. Section6 provides that a Special Court may, if it considers it expedient or desirableso to do, hold its sitting for any of its proceedings at any place, other thanthe ordinary place of its sitting or seat. Section 8 of the Act provides thatwhen trying any offence punishable under the Gangsters Act, a Special A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt may also try any other offence with which the accused may, underany 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 appointa person to be the Public Prosecutor for every Special Court. Section 10provides that a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence triableby it, without the accused being committed to it for trial upon receiving aBcomplaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police reportof such facts. Section 12 provides that the trial under the Gangsters Actof any offence by Special Court shall have precedence over the trial ofany other case against the accused in any other court (not being a SpecialCourt) and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such otherCcase and accordingly the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance.Section 13 of the Gangsters Act provides that where, after takingcognizance of any offence, a Special Court is opinion that the offence isnot triable by it, it shall, notwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction to trysuch an offence, transfer the case for trial of such offence to any othercourt having jurisdiction under the Code and the court to which the caseDis transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it has takencognizance of the offence.

8. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that all provisions are toensure that the offences under the Gangsters Act should be givenpreference and should be tried expeditiously and that too, by the SpecialECourts, to achieve the object and purpose of the enactment of theGangsters Act.

9. Now so far as the main submission on behalf of the accusedthat for a single offence/FIR/charge sheet with respect to any of theanti-social activities, such an accused cannot be prosecuted under theFGangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, on a fair reading of the definitions of‘Gang’ and ‘Gangster’ under the Gangsters Act, 1986, it can be seenthat a ‘Gang’ is a group of one or more persons who commit/s the crimesmentioned in the definition clause for the motive of earning undueadvantage, whether pecuniary, material or otherwise. Even a single crimeGcommitted by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on suchmembers of the ‘Gang’. The definition clause does not engulf pluralityof offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked.

A group of persons may act collectively or anyone of the membersof the group may also act singly, with the object of disturbing publicHorder 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 isfound to have indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned inSection 2(b) of the Gangsters Act.

10. On a fair reading of the definitions of ‘Gang’ contained inSection 2(b) and ‘Gangster’ contained in Section 2(c) of the GangstersAct, a ‘Gangster’ means a member or leader or organiser of a gangincluding any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gangenumerated in clause (b) of Section 2, who either acting singly orcollectively commits and indulges in any of the anti-social activitiesmentioned in Section 2(b) can be said to have committed the offenceunder the Gangsters Act and can be prosecuted and punished for theoffence under the Gangsters Act. There is no specific provision underthe Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the MaharashtraControl of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control ofTerrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting anaccused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offenceor the FIR/charge sheet. As per the settled position of law, the provisionsof the statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, consideringthe provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in caseof a single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if it is found that the accused is amember of a ‘Gang’ and has indulged in any of the anti-social activitiesmentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, by violence, orthreat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise withthe object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal,pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other personand he/she can be termed as ‘Gangster’ within the definition of Section2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the offences under theGangsters 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 Section2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, orthreat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise withthe object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal,pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.

11. In the present case, it is alleged that the main accused P.C.Sharma was a gang leader and who was the mastermind and he hatched A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Athe criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused including the appellantherein to commit the murder of the deceased Sadhna Sharma for apecuniary benefit as there was a property dispute going on since longbetween the family members. It is also to be noted that the other co-accused were already charge sheeted/prosecuted for the offence underthe Gangsters Act and therefore the appellant and the other two co-Baccused being members of the ‘Gang’ were also required to be prosecutedfor the offences under the Gangsters Act also like other co-accused.Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be saidthat no prosecution could have been initiated against the appellant-accusedfor the offences under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986.

C12. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons statedabove, the High Court has rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedingsagainst the appellant-accused under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act,1986, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are in completeagreement with the view taken by the High Court. Under the Dcircumstances, the present appeals fail and the same deserve to bedismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

E

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

Appeal dismissed.

F

G

H