In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, ruled that mere membership in a gang without active involvement in criminal activities does not justify punishment under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court quashed the FIR against Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat, emphasizing that FIRs registered under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act must specify corresponding provisions of Section 2(b) to substantiate the allegation of gangsterism.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat, filed a writ petition challenging an FIR dated 29.02.2024, registered under Case Crime No. 28 of 2024 at Alinagar Police Station in Chandauli District, Uttar Pradesh. The FIR was lodged under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act, based on a gang chart approved on 14.02.2024. The petitioner contended that the FIR was filed illegally, as it referenced incidents that occurred more than three years ago, with the charge sheet in the base case being filed on 14.02.2020. The petitioner argued that no subsequent criminal activities had occurred within three years to justify the application of the Gangster Act.
Legal Issues
The writ petition raised two key legal questions:
1. Validity of the FIR under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act: The petitioner challenged the FIR on the grounds that it did not specify the corresponding provisions of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act, which outlines the definition and criteria for being classified as a gangster.
2. Application of Rule 4(2) of the UP Gangster Rules, 2021: The petitioner contended that the FIR violated Rule 4(2) of the Gangster Rules, which states that a person cannot be included in a gang if the offenses occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the FIR, provided the offenses do not fall under the purview of the Gangster Act.
Court’s Observations
The court made several critical observations while deliberating on the case:
– Mere Membership in a Gang Insufficient for Punishment: The court reaffirmed the principle laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. (1987), stating, “A person is not liable to be punished under the Act merely because he happens to be a member of a group.” For a person to be penalized under the Gangster Act, the court emphasized that there must be an active involvement in criminal activities aimed at disturbing public order or gaining material advantage, as outlined in Section 2(b) of the Act.
– FIR Lacks Specification of Provisions under Section 2(b): Citing the case of Asim @ Hassim vs State of U.P. (2024), the court ruled that FIRs filed under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act must specify the corresponding provisions of Section 2(b) that justify labeling an individual as a gangster. The absence of such specification rendered the FIR illegal. The court further noted that the precedent set in Asim @ Hassim remains valid until the reference to a larger bench in Dharmendra @ Bhima vs State of U.P. is decided.
– Rule 4(2) of the Gangster Rules: The court interpreted Rule 4(2) of the UP Gangster Rules, 2021, and observed that the rule applies only if the offenses committed within the past three years do not fall under the scope of the Gangster Act. In this case, the base offenses referenced in the FIR were over three years old and did not qualify under the provisions of the Act, making the FIR unsustainable.
Decision of the Court
The court quashed the FIR dated 29.02.2024 and its associated gang chart, holding that the FIR was invalid as it did not comply with the legal requirements of the Gangster Act. The court underscored that the mere passage of time since the last recorded offense, coupled with the failure to specify the relevant provisions of Section 2(b), made the case against the petitioner unsupportable under the law. Furthermore, the court held that any action taken based on the FIR was unlawful and thus could not be sustained.
Case Title: Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11077 of 2024
