Mahesh Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court dismissed the application. It held that the gang chart indicated a gang of 18 persons operating to cheat the public. The investigation found the applicant's complicity, and two cases of a similar nature (cheating) were shown against him in the gang chart, indicating his involvement in anti-social activities. The Court found the applicant's case distinguishable from that of co-accused Alok Kumar Upadhyay, Ravendra Singh, and Chintanand @ Chetan, whose proceedings were stayed by the Court due to only a solitary case being presented against them. Prima facie, an offense under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act was made out against the applicant, and his case was distinct from the other co-accused. Therefore, the Court found no illegality in the impugned charge-sheet and dismissed the application.

Facts

The applicant, Mahesh Sharma, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a summoning order dated 21.11.2020 and the proceedings of GST No. 1922 of 2020. These proceedings arise from a case registered under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura. The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based on two cases involving forgery and cheating (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC), arguing these do not establish him as a gangster. He also pointed out that proceedings were stayed for other co-accused based on solitary cases against them, seeking similar treatment. The State argued that the cheating and forgery cases justified the Gangsters Act charges, and the applicant's case was distinguishable from those of the co-accused due to multiple cases against him.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant can be considered a gangster and involved in anti-social activities based on cases involving cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act). - Petitioner's argument: The applicant argued that cases of forgery and cheating do not inherently classify him as a gangster or involved in anti-social activities. He contended that since other co-accused facing solitary cases had their proceedings stayed, he should also receive similar interim protection or have his proceedings quashed. - Revenue's argument: The State contended that the allegations of cheating and forgery were specific and justified the lodging of the FIR under the Gangsters Act. They argued that the applicant's case was distinguishable from other co-accused because multiple cases were shown against him in the gang chart, unlike the solitary cases against the others.