Summary
An accused sought quashing of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act on the ground that only one underlying criminal case had been registered against her. The Court held that the Act did not require multiple offences or charge sheets. A single case could support prosecution if the statutory requirements of gang membership and the specified anti-social activity and purpose were met. Allegations of participation in a murder conspiracy for pecuniary gain justified refusal to quash; the appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a single underlying offence, FIR or charge sheet could support prosecution under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, 1986.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(b), 2(c) and 3, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986The definitions and penal provision did not impose a multiple-case prerequisite; the specified gang-related activity and statutory purpose still had to be established. (¶¶ 7-7.1, 9-12)
Held
- Neither the definition of gang nor that of gangster made plurality of offences or charge sheets a prerequisite. A gang member acting singly or collectively could be prosecuted on a single qualifying offence where the statutory activity, means and purpose were satisfied. The holding did not dispense with those substantive ingredients. (¶ 9-10)
- A gangster included a member, leader or organiser of a gang and persons abetting or assisting the enumerated gang activities. The relevant activity had to fall within Section 2(b), involving the specified means and the object of disturbing public order or obtaining an undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage. (¶¶ 7, 10)
- Requirements in other organised-crime enactments could not be imported into this Act to create a multiple-case threshold absent from its text. The statute had to be applied on its own terms. (¶ 10)
- The allegations connected the appellant with a gang-led murder conspiracy for pecuniary benefit arising from a property dispute. The fact that her role emerged in further investigation and she was subsequently charge-sheeted alongside others did not justify quashing on the single-case ground. This was a decision allowing prosecution to proceed, not a conviction. (¶ 11-12)
Result
Appeals dismissed. The High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act was affirmed.