TEJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 02.6.2002 and all subsequent proceedings initiated against them in S.S.T. No. 14 of 2003, State of U.P. vs. Tej Singh and others, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants as Case Crime No. 220 of 2001 under Sections 147,148, 149, 324, 323, 307, 302 I.P.C. P.S.- Mandawar, Distict- Bijnor. This F.I.R. is annexure no. 1 to the present application. Further submission is that it is this solitary case which was made the basis to impose Gangsters Act and such a course is bad in the eyes of law. The perusal of the same would show that the same was lodged against about 20 persons who were alleged to have made assault and resorted to firing also that eventually resulted in the death of two persons. There is also a cross case registered against the other side as Case Crime No. 220A of 2001, under Sections 147, 323, 324 I.P.C., in the police station Mandawar, District- Bijnor. Submission is that perusal of the F.I.R. would show that though it was a grave crime but it was nonetheless a regular kind of crime that unfortunately keeps taking place between the parties. The motive of personal hostility, feud, village factionalism, local disputes are most of the times in the background of commission of such offence. According to the counsel it is certainly not a crime which may be said to have been committed either to make undue economic gain or to perpetrate some terror or to continue any such criminal activities which is, by and large, detrimental to the safety and security of the society. Counsel has gone to the extent of arguing that Gangsters Act in the present case has been imposed only on the basis of a single aforesaid case that has been registered against the applicants which is an illegal misuse of the Act and can not survive the scrutiny of law. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that actually it is a case of such nature during the trial of which the plea of self defense has to be necessarily decided by the Court. Contention is that when the trials of two cases shall be completed it is also quite probable that the court may come to the conclusion that the incident in question took place in the exercise of self defense or may be, the court would hold that the incident took place in which the accused persons simply exceeded their right of private defense and they were never rank aggressors. In that eventuality imposition of the case Gangster Act does not appear to be a justified exercise. Submission of learned counsel is that therefore in such circumstances it shall result in the abuse of court's process if the single case of aforesaid kind is made the basis to impose Gangsters Act as the ingredients of the offence shall not be born out and thus in such circumstances, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.