In its latest judgment the Supreme Court delved into the intricacies of prosecuting individuals under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The case centered around an appellant who was a purported member of a gang led by Puskal Parag Dubey. An FIR had been registered against the appellant to impose restrictions on the gang's activities, citing offenses under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.

The details of the matter lay in Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, which stipulates that an individual alleged to be a gang member could face charges under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if engaged in anti-social activities. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the proceedings and prosecution under the Gangsters Act could persist despite the exoneration in predicate offenses covered by Section 2(b)(i) of the Act.

Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta underscored the importance of clearly stating the connection between the accused and offenses falling under anti-social activities as defined in Section 2(b) when framing charges under the Gangsters Act. The Court emphasized, "The prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offenses covered by anti-social activities as defined under Section 2(b)."

Represented by Advocate Anurag Singh, the appellant argued that the ongoing prosecution lacked justification, asserting it amounted to an abuse of the court's process due to the absence of charges involving anti-social activities. The Allahabad High Court had previously exonerated the appellant for offenses under Chapter XVII IPC.

The Supreme Court concurred with the appellant's stance, stating, "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 offense is unjustified and tantamounts to abuse of the process of Court."

Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings, setting aside the High Court's order.

Case: Farhana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 437 of 2023).

Click to read/download judgment.