Read Time: 06 minutes

Dismissing a batch of petitions on Thursday, Allahabad High Court said that in view of the basic idea of protection of the society, liberty in a civilized society cannot be absolute.

A Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed,

“It is the duty of the courts to uphold the dignity of personal liberty and to see if an individual crosses the limit carved out by law, he needs to be dealt with appropriately, inasmuch as no individual has any right to hazard others’ liberty.”

The court was hearing a batch of petitions praying to quash the FIRs registered against the petitioners under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (the Act).

The controversy in the case revolved around provisions of Section 2(b) (defines “Gang”), Section 2(c)(defines “gangster”) and Section 3(provides penalty to a gangster),of the Act.

It was averred by the counsel for the petitioners that merely on the basis of solitary criminal case registered against the petitioners, a case under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 cannot be registered.

Refuting this argument, the court said,

“The Scheme of the Act, 1986 nowhere prohibits lodging of first information report under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act, 1986 (the Act, 1986) on the basis of a single case.”

Taking note of the preamble of the Act, the Bench held,

“The intention of the Act, 1986 is to curve such type of crime, which has become epidemic in the society. The legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life.”

In furtherance of the same, the Bench held that,

“Control of crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity and for this reason it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens. Thus, the Act, 1986, in actuality, responded to the actual feelings and requirements of the collective. In view of the basic idea of protection of the society, liberty in a civilized society cannot be absolute. Therefore, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the dignity of personal liberty and to see if an individual crosses the limit carved out by law, he needs to be dealt with appropriately, inasmuch as no individual has any right to hazard others’ liberty. Rule of law does not permit anti-social acts that lead to a disorderly society.”

Concluding that a first information report under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986, can be registered against a person even if only one criminal case is registered against him, and on the ground of registration of merely one criminal case, an FIR registered under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, cannot be quashed, the Court dismissed the petition finding them sans merit.

(Case Title: A batch of petitions)