No. - 2025:AHC:27569 Court No. - 76 Case :-…
Cognizance/summoning order dated 9.7.2010 and entire proceedings of Case No. 99 of 2010 under the Gangster Act quashed against the applicants.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27569
Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1833 of 2025
Applicant :- Mukesh Chaudhary And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Shishodia,Praveen Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
the applicants.
"12. From a bare perusal of Section 2(b)(i) of the Gangsters Act, it would become apparent that the person alleged to be the member of the gang should be found indulging in anti-social activities which would be covered under the offences punishable under Chapters XVI, or XVII or XXII IPC. There is no dispute that the case set up by the prosecution against the appellants insofar as the offences under the Gangsters Act are concerned, is limited to Section 2(b)(i) reproduced supra and none of the other clauses of the provision have been pressed into service for the proposed prosecution.
13. Needless to say that for framing a charge for the offence under the Gangsters Act and for continuing the prosecution of the accused under the above provisions, the prosecution would be required to clearly state that the appellants are being prosecuted for any one or more offences covered by antisocial activities as defined under Section 2(b).
14. There being no dispute that in the proceedings of the sole FIR registered against the appellants for the offences under Chapter XVII IPC being Crime Case No. 173 of 2019, the appellants stand exonerated with the quashing of the said FIR by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, vide order dated 3rd March, 2023 passed in Application No. 7228 of 2023.
15. Hence, 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 offence is unjustified and tantamounts to abuse of the process of Court.
16. As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, the impugned orders dated 14th November, 2022 and 6th December, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the impugned FIR being Crime Case No.424 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, registered at Police Station- Bhognipur, District- Kanpur Dehat and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the appellants are hereby quashed.
17. The appeals are allowed accordingly"
quashed by the High Court and it was observed by the Supreme Court that since the very foundation of continuing the prosecution of the appellants under the provisions of Gangster Act stand struck off and consequently continuing prosecution of the appellant for offence under Gangster Act is unjustified and tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court. The said case law is squarely applicable to facts of the present case. In the instant matter also, the proceedings of both the cases, on the basis of which impugned proceedings were initiated, have been quashed and thus, the very basis of the impugned proceedings stands vanished and receded. Here it would be relevant to mention that there is no such evidence of any specific incident that the applicant was found indulging in anti-social activities covered under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII, so as to bring them within the purview of Section 2 (b) (i) of the Gangster Act.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ujjawal
Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether cognizance/summoning order and Gangster Act proceedings can be quashed when the applicants stand acquitted in the underlying cases forming their basis?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Farhana Versus State of U. P.Followed¶5
SLP (Crl.) No.437 of 2023
8 provisions across 5 enactments
Mukesh Chaudhary And Another
State Of U.P.
Vinod Diwakar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
