The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that trials under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, must take precedence over other pending criminal cases against the accused, as per the statutory mandate of Section 12 of the Act. The Court set aside multiple orders passed by the Special Judge (MP/MLA Court), Balrampur, which had rejected the prosecution’s application seeking precedence for the Gangsters Act trial and imposed costs on police officers.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi in Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2025, filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary (Home), challenging the Special Judge’s orders dated 21.12.2024 and 10.01.2025 in Special Session Trial No. 85 of 2022.
Background
The case stems from FIR No. 54/2022 lodged under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur, against six individuals accused of forming a criminal gang led by one Rizwan Zaheer. The gang allegedly conspired to murder a former block chairman for political gain and was involved in other serious criminal activities, including violence during panchayat elections, assaulting police personnel, arson, and destruction of public and private property. Separate FIRs had been lodged for these offences under various sections of the IPC, and charge-sheets were filed.
The prosecution had moved an application before the Special Judge, citing Section 12 of the Gangsters Act and Rule 57 of the UP Gangsters Rules, 2021, requesting that the trial under the Gangsters Act be given precedence and that other base cases, including one under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC (SST No. 85/2022), be kept in abeyance.
Arguments
The accused opposed the application, relying on the judgment in Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi v. State of U.P. (2011), arguing that the legislative intent behind Section 12 was to prevent delay in Gangsters Act cases, not to halt all other proceedings. They emphasized that trials for serious offences like murder should not be stalled.
The trial court agreed with this interpretation and rejected the prosecution’s applications. It also imposed costs on the police officers for filing the applications and ordered initiation of separate criminal proceedings against the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Balrampur.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the trial court had erred in ignoring the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P., (2013) 8 SCC 368, which upheld the constitutionality and mandate of Section 12 of the Gangsters Act. The provision clearly requires that trials under the Gangsters Act must be concluded in preference to other trials and that other proceedings must remain in abeyance.
The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., (2022) 19 SCC 57, reaffirming that the objective of the Gangsters Act is to ensure speedy trials by Special Courts and that such trials must be prioritized.
It was clarified that Section 20 of the Gangsters Act provides an overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws.
On the trial court’s interpretation based on Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi, the High Court noted that it could not override later authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
Decision
Allowing the revision, the High Court quashed:
- Para (b) of the order dated 21.12.2024, which had called for explanations from the DM and SP Balrampur,
- Clause (ga) of the order dated 10.01.2025, which had initiated criminal proceedings against these officers, and
- All consequential orders dated 13.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 08, 10, and 12 of 2025.
Accordingly, the proceedings in these miscellaneous cases were also set aside.
Case Title: State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary (Home), Lucknow vs. Special Judge (MP/MLA Court) Balrampur and Others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2025
