The court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a charge sheet under the U.P. Gangsters Act based on a single incident. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shradha Gupta, the court held that no interference was required at this stage. The applicant alleged he was merely a driver in an illegal mining case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27978 of 2021
Applicant :- Washeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Md. Muzzammil.I.Qureshi,Shahabuddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Md. Mussammil.I.Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sushma Soni learned AGA for the State-respondent.
By way of filing present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicant challenged the charge sheet of a case under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that merely on the basis of solitary case, applicant has been implicated in the case under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act alongwith 10 other co-accused persons and without any proper investigation, charge sheet has also been submitted against him. He further submitted that the case on the basis of which applicant made accused in Gangsters Act is of Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 506, 504 IPC and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and in that case, only allegation against the applicant is that he was only driver of the J.C.B. machine on the date when the illegal mining was being conducted by the other accused persons. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no offence under Gangsters Act is made out against the applicant.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and further the merit of the case, at this stage, cannot be adjudicated and further merely on the basis of sole case, a Gangsters Act can be imposed against the applicant, therefore, present application is liable to be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
Recently, Supreme Court on 26.4.2022 in case of Shradha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. passed in Crl. Appeal No. 569 -570 of 2022 held that even on single case, a
person can be made an accused in U.P. Gangsters Act and further, after investigation charge sheet has been submitted and the sole case relates to illegal mining, therefore, at this stage, no interference is required.
Accordingly, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 11.5.2022 Ankita
Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.12 11:32:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a charge sheet under the U.P. Gangsters Act, filed on the basis of a single incident involving illegal mining, should be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shradha Gupta Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Shradha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. passed in Crl. Appeal No. 569 -570 of 2022
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Washeem
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
