Ram Briksha Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22638

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4512 of 2025

Applicant :- Ram Briksha Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Pratap Singh,Krishna Anand,Sachin Singh,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material on record.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.09.2013 and summoning order dated 30.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Maharajganj as well as entire proceedings of G.T. No.8 of 2013, titled State v. Ram Briksha and others, arising out of Case Crime No.186 of 2013, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, P.S. Purandapur, District Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Maharajganj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first FIR under Gangsters Act was registered in March 2013, based on two cases: Case Crime No. 49 of 2013, under Sections 34, 302, 394, and 411 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Purandarpur, District Maharajganj, and Case Crime No. 84 of 2012, under Section 392 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Compierganj, District Gorakhpur. Subsequently, a second FIR in Crime No. 110 of 2013, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act, was registered on 13.04.2013, based on nine cases, namely: Case Crime No. 49 of

¶9

2013, under Section 302 of the IPC, P.S. Purandarpur, District Maharajganj; Case Crime No. 84 of 2012, under Section 392 and 411 of the IPC, P.S. Compierganj, District Gorakhpur; Case Crime No. 167 of 2005, under Section 392 of the IPC, P.S. P.P. Ganj, District Gorakhpur; Case Crime No. 205 of 2005, under Section 392 and 411 of the IPC, P.S. Compierganj, District Gorakhpur; Crime No. 467 of 2008, under Section 307 of the IPC, P.S. P.P. Ganj, District Gorakhpur; Case Crime No. 217 of 2006, under Section 392 and 504 of the IPC, P.S. P.P. Ganj, District Gorakhpur; Crime No. 447 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 307 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Compierganj, District Gorakhpur; Crime No. 446 of 2006, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Compierganj; and Crime No. 1250 of 2009, under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, P.S. P.P. Ganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶10

Learned counsel further submits that since the applicant has already been charged under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act in relation to the cases mentioned in the first FIR, he cannot be separately tried for the same facts and cause of action under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act in the second FIR. Moreover, the provisions of the Gangsters Act cannot be invoked in connection with cases under the Arms Act. The applicant has also been acquitted in Case Crime No. 248 of 2004, under Section 302 of the IPC, at P.S. Belipar, District Gorakhpur. Consequently, learned counsel submits that the provisions of the Gangsters Act invoked against the applicant is illegal and vitiated under the law.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submits that the two FIRs, upon which the provisions of the Gangsters Act have been invoked, are distinct and separate. The

¶12

first FIR was registered in March 2013, while the second FIR was registered in April 2013. In the second FIR, the police have relied upon nine cases, which form the basis for invoking the provisions of the Gangsters Act.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the material available on record, it is observed that the provisions of the Gangsters Act have been invoked based on a distinct set of facts. However, the submission of counsel for the applicant is that, since the applicant has already been charged under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act in relation to the cases mentioned in the first FIR, he cannot be separately tried on the same facts and cause of action under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act in the second FIR. The Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta v. the State of Uttar Pradesh has held that 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. Moreover, the provisions of Gangsters Act have been invoked in the year 2013 and the applicant has approached this Court after a decade. Therefore, no case for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is made out.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 A. Tripathi

¶16

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Briksha Nishad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Ram Briksha Nishad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases