Brijraj Singh And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicants, Brijraj Singh and three others, filed an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash a charge-sheet dated 22.10.2007 and a summoning/cognizance order dated 02.02.2021, along with the entire proceedings of GST No. 175 of 2007. These proceedings were initiated under sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on alleged involvement in Case Crime No. 421 of 2007. The applicants contended that the proceedings under the Gangster Act were initiated based on underlying cases in which all applicants had already been acquitted. They argued that once the base cases were quashed or resulted in acquittal, the Gangster Act proceedings were unsustainable. The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., opposed the prayer but did not dispute the acquittal in the base cases.

Held

The Court held that proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, are liable to be quashed if the base cases depicted in the gang chart have already been quashed or the accused have been acquitted. The Court found it crystal clear that the base cases forming the foundation for the gang chart had already been quashed. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Farhana (supra) and other High Court judgments (Salim @ Piyaoo, Jai Prakash, and Sartaj), the Court reasoned that the continuation of Gangster Act proceedings after acquittal in the base cases is unsustainable. Consequently, the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2007, the summoning/cognizance order dated 02.02.2021, and the entire proceedings of GST No. 175 of 2007, pending before the learned Special Judge Gangster Act, Jhansi, were quashed specifically in relation to the applicants. The Court clarified that this order would not preclude authorities from initiating fresh proceedings based on any other cases against the applicants.

Key Issues

1. Whether proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, are sustainable when the underlying base cases, forming the basis of the gang chart, have already resulted in the acquittal of the accused. The petitioner's contention was that the initiation of proceedings under the Gangster Act is baseless and amounts to harassment, as all the applicants have been acquitted in the respective base cases. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Farhana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2024 0 INSC 118], arguing that once the base case is quashed, the proceedings under the Gangster Act cannot continue and are liable to be set aside. The revenue (State) opposed the prayer but did not dispute the fact of the applicants' acquittal in the base cases.