Allahabad High Court
SHRAVAN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed; a prosecution under the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities Act can be sustained on a solitary case when procedural requirements are met.
Summary
Shravan Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking quashment of an FIR dated 18.03.2026 registered under Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1986. He contended that a single criminal case cannot sustain prosecution under the Act and therefore the FIR should be set aside. The State, represented by the Advocate General, argued that the prosecution is valid even on a solitary case and that the requisite procedural compliance under Rule 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2021, had been fulfilled. The Court examined the record, found the State’s objections substantiated, and held that the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and any interim relief was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal prosecution under the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1986 can be sustained on the basis of a single FIR/case.
- Whether compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2021 validates the prosecution.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986 — s. 2(b)(i), 3(1)
- U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2021 — s. Rule 5(3)(a)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quashment
- gangster act
- anti‑social activities
- single case prosecution
- Rule 5(3)(a)
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8218 of 2026
Shravan Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vipul Kumar Singh, Vivek Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vipul Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and
the learned AGA for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for petitioner in
Court today, is taken on record.
3. Perused the record.
4. Petitioner- Shravan Kumar has approached this Court by means of
present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 18.03.2026
lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Atul Kumar Mishra, Station
House Officer, Police Station Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh and
registered as Case Crime No. 61 of 2026, under Sections 2(b)(i), 3(1) of
U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986, Police Station-
Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh.
5. Learned Counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition
submits that there is only one criminal case registered against petitioner.
As such the criminal prosecution of petitioner under the provisions of
Sections 2(b)(i) and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social
Activities Act, 1986 cannot be sustained. He therefore submits that in
view of above, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3
has vehemently opposed the present writ petition petition. Learned AGA
CRLP No. 8218 of 2026
2
contends that the criminal prosecution of an accused for under the
provisions of U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act
can be sustained even on the basis of solitary case.
7. It is then contended by the learned AGA that the criminal prosecution
of petitioner was lodged after complying with the provisions Rule 5(3)(a)
of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2021,
i.e., after joint meeting of minds. Furthermore, as per the document
occurring at page 70 of the supplementary affidavit, it is apparent that
categorical reasons have been recorded, on the basis of which, an
objective assessment was made and it was concluded that criminal
prosecution against petitioner is warranted under the aforementioned Act.
On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that present writ
petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could
not over come the same.
9. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for
State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that the
objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present writ
petition are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore, the same
could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioner, with
reference to the record. In view of above, the present writ petition fails
and is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.N. Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
AMARNATH MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…