LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a single FIR/charge sheet for an anti-social activity is sufficient to prosecute an individual under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Shraddha Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Judgment Date: 26 April 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 417
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a person be prosecuted under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) based on a single criminal charge? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the scope of the Gangsters Act. The court examined whether a single FIR (First Information Report) or charge sheet for an anti-social activity is sufficient to invoke the Gangsters Act against an individual. Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, forming a division bench, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
On 24 May 2016, a written report was filed by the sister of the deceased, Sadhna Sharma, alleging that her sister was murdered due to prior enmity. The report stated that on 23 May 2016, while Sadhna Sharma was returning from court, a car carrying the accused persons rammed into her scooter, leading to her death. An FIR was registered against six accused persons under Sections 147, 304, 504, 323, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Subsequently, on 27 May 2017, a case under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986 was registered against eight accused persons. A charge sheet was filed against these eight accused on 26 May 2018. During further investigation, the names of Shraddha Gupta (the appellant), her husband Sharvan Gupta, and Kamlesh Sharma surfaced, and they were also implicated in the murder conspiracy. A supplementary charge sheet was filed against them.
A gang chart was prepared against the appellant and other two accused on 19 March 2019. The Joint Director (Prosecution) granted approval on 1 April 2019 to register a case against them under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the appellant and two other co-accused on 27 May 2019, under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23 May 2016 | Sadhna Sharma was murdered. |
| 24 May 2016 | FIR registered against six accused persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| 27 May 2017 | Case registered under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act against eight accused persons. |
| 26 May 2018 | Charge sheet filed against eight accused persons under the Gangsters Act. |
| 19 March 2019 | Gang chart prepared against Shraddha Gupta and two other accused. |
| 1 April 2019 | Joint Director (Prosecution) granted approval to register a case against Shraddha Gupta and two other accused under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. |
| 27 May 2019 | FIR registered against Shraddha Gupta and two other accused under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant, Shraddha Gupta, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking to quash the FIR registered against her under the Gangsters Act. She argued that she was falsely implicated and that a single FIR was not sufficient to charge her under the Gangsters Act. The High Court dismissed her petition and also dismissed the review application.
Legal Framework
The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, aims to prevent and cope with gangsters and anti-social activities. Key provisions include:
-
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act defines “Gang” as a group of persons who, acting either singly or collectively, use violence, threats, intimidation, or coercion to disturb public order or gain undue advantage, and engage in anti-social activities. These activities include offenses punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII, or XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and various other offenses related to drugs, property, and public order.
“2(b) “Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities…” -
Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act defines “Gangster” as a member, leader, or organizer of a gang, including anyone who abets or assists in the activities of a gang.
“2(c) “gangster” means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities.” - Section 3 of the Gangsters Act provides for the punishment of a gangster with imprisonment for a term not less than two years and up to ten years, along with a fine.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that she was falsely implicated in the case. She was not named in the original FIR, and her name surfaced only during further investigation.
- It was contended that she is a household lady and not a gang leader or member.
- The appellant contended that a single FIR/charge sheet related to a single murder is not sufficient to classify her as a “Gangster” under the Gangsters Act. She argued that she does not engage in anti-social activities.
- The appellant relied on Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, to argue that only activities that affect public order can be considered anti-social activities.
- The appellant also cited Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCConLine Gujarat 1260, to support her argument that a single FIR is not sufficient to invoke preventive statutes.
- It was argued that once the Special Court took cognizance against eight persons, it was not open to implicate the present accused, who were charge sheeted subsequently for the offences under the Gangsters Act.
Respondents’ Submissions:
- The respondents argued that the appellant and two other accused were rightly charged under the Gangsters Act after following due procedure, including the preparation and approval of a gang chart.
- It was submitted that the other eight co-accused were already charged under the Gangsters Act for the same offense.
- The respondents contended that the appellant was part of a conspiracy to murder Sadhna Sharma for pecuniary gain, due to a property dispute.
- It was stated that the main co-accused, P.C. Sharma, is a dangerous criminal and gang leader.
- The respondents argued that even a single FIR for anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act is sufficient for prosecution under the Act. They distinguished the Gangsters Act from statutes like the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015, which require multiple offenses.
- The respondents relied on several decisions of the High Court of Allahabad, including Vishnu Dayal Vishwanath v. State of UP (2007), Rinku @ Hukku v. State of U.P. (2000), Mohit Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2015), Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki v. State of U.P. (2021), and Ajay Rai v. State of U.P. (1994), which held that a single FIR can be sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a single FIR/charge sheet is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:
- Whether a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a single FIR/charge sheet is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act. | Yes | The court held that the definition of “Gang” and “Gangster” under the Gangsters Act does not require multiple offenses. A single anti-social activity by a member of a gang is sufficient for prosecution under the Act. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 | Supreme Court of India | The appellant relied on this case to argue that only activities that affect public order can be considered anti-social activities. However, the court distinguished this case. |
| Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCConLine Gujarat 1260 | Gujarat High Court | The appellant cited this case to argue that a single FIR is not sufficient to invoke preventive statutes. However, the court distinguished this case. |
| Vishnu Dayal Vishwanath v. State of UP (2007) | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | The respondents relied on this case to support their argument that a single FIR is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this view. |
| Rinku @ Hukku v. State of U.P. (2000) | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | The respondents relied on this case to support their argument that a single FIR is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this view. |
| Mohit Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2015) | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | The respondents relied on this case to support their argument that a single FIR is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this view. |
| Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki v. State of U.P. (2021) | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | The respondents relied on this case to support their argument that a single FIR is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this view. |
| Ajay Rai v. State of U.P. (1994) | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad | The respondents relied on this case to support their argument that a single FIR is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this view. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that a single FIR/charge sheet is insufficient to prosecute under the Gangsters Act. | Rejected. The Court held that the Gangsters Act does not require multiple offenses. |
| Appellant’s submission that she is a household lady and not a gang member. | Rejected. The Court held that the appellant was part of the gang which committed murder. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Piyush Kantilal Mehta and Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela. | Distinguished. The court found that these cases were not applicable to the Gangsters Act. |
| Appellant’s submission that once cognizance was taken against eight accused, the appellant could not be implicated. | Rejected. The Court held that further investigation can implicate other members of the gang. |
| Respondents’ submission that a single FIR is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the Gangsters Act does not require multiple offenses. |
| Respondents’ submission that the appellant was part of a conspiracy for pecuniary gain. | Accepted. The Court held that the appellant was part of the gang which committed murder for pecuniary gain. |
| Respondents’ reliance on Allahabad High Court decisions. | Accepted. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court distinguished Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, stating that it did not apply to the Gangsters Act.
- The Supreme Court also distinguished Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCConLine Gujarat 1260, finding it inapplicable to the Gangsters Act.
- The Supreme Court approved and followed the view taken by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Vishnu Dayal Vishwanath v. State of UP (2007), Rinku @ Hukku v. State of U.P. (2000), Mohit Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2015), Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki v. State of U.P. (2021), and Ajay Rai v. State of U.P. (1994), holding that a single FIR is sufficient for prosecution under the Gangsters Act.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the plain language of the Gangsters Act, 1986. The Court emphasized that the definitions of “Gang” and “Gangster” do not require multiple offenses for prosecution. The Court also considered the purpose of the Gangsters Act, which is to prevent and cope with gangsters and anti-social activities. The Court noted that even a single crime committed by a member of a gang can disturb public order or lead to undue advantage, thereby falling within the ambit of the Act.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Plain language of the Gangsters Act | 40% |
| Purpose of the Gangsters Act | 30% |
| Single crime can disturb public order | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments, stating that:
- The definition of “Gang” in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act includes a group of persons acting singly or collectively.
- A single crime committed by a gang member can be sufficient to invoke the Gangsters Act.
- There is no requirement for multiple offenses under the Gangsters Act, unlike other statutes.
The Court highlighted that the appellant was part of a gang that committed murder for pecuniary gain, which falls within the ambit of the Gangsters Act.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:
“Even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the ‘Gang’. The definition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked.”
“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 is found to have indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters 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 Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.”
There were no dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
- A single FIR/charge sheet for an anti-social activity listed in Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is sufficient to prosecute a person under the Act.
- The Gangsters Act does not require multiple offenses for prosecution, unlike some other similar statutes.
- The definition of “Gang” includes individuals acting singly or collectively, and a single crime by a gang member can be sufficient to invoke the Act.
- This judgment clarifies the scope of the Gangsters Act and its application in cases involving a single criminal incident.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a single FIR/charge sheet for an anti-social activity listed in Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is sufficient to prosecute a person under the Act. This case clarifies that the Gangsters Act can be invoked even in cases where there is only one instance of criminal activity by a member of a gang. This is a significant clarification of the law, as it means that individuals can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act even if they have only committed one crime, provided that crime falls under the definition of anti-social activity under Section 2(b) of the Act. This is a departure from the position of law under other similar statutes which require multiple instances of criminal activity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that a single FIR/charge sheet for an anti-social activity is sufficient to prosecute an individual under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. This judgment reinforces the broad scope of the Gangsters Act and its applicability to members of a gang, even in cases involving a single criminal act.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Gangsters Act, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Section 2(b), Section 2(c), Anti-Social Activities, Gang, Gangster, Single FIR, Criminal Conspiracy, Murder
Parent Category: Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
Child Category: Section 2(b), Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
Child Category: Section 2(c), Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
FAQ
Q: Can I be charged under the Gangsters Act if I have only committed one crime?
A: Yes, according to this Supreme Court judgment, if that single crime qualifies as an anti-social activity under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and you are a member of a gang, you can be prosecuted under the Act.
Q: What is considered an anti-social activity under the Gangsters Act?
A: Anti-social activities include offenses like murder, violence, extortion, and other activities that disturb public order or provide undue advantage, as listed in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act.
Q: Does this mean anyone can be charged under the Gangsters Act for any single crime?
A: No, the crime must fall under the specific list of anti-social activities in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, and the person must be a member of a gang as defined in the Act.
Q: What is a gang according to the Gangsters Act?
A: A gang is a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, use violence, threats, intimidation, or coercion to disturb public order or gain undue advantage, and engage in anti-social activities.
Q: What is a gangster according to the Gangsters Act?
A: A gangster is a member, leader, or organizer of a gang, including anyone who abets or assists in the activities of a gang.