Hari Kant Nagar v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant, Harikant Nagar, seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 04.05.2023 and the summoning order dated

05.03.2024 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2024, arising out

of FIR No. 65 of 2022, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,

2. The FIR alleges that the Applicant and his family members formed a gang led by co-accused Asha Nagar, and collected money from the public through “kitty” schemes without returning the same, thereby disturbing public order.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the present case is a clear instance of abuse of the process of law, wherein Criminal Misc. Application No. 896 of 2024, Hari Kant Nagar Vs State of Uttarakhand. 1 Ashish Naithani J. the Applicant has been falsely implicated merely on account of his familial relationship with co-accused Asha Nagar, who is alleged to be the gang leader. It was contended that the Applicant has had no involvement whatsoever in any “kitty” scheme or monetary transaction that forms the basis of the FIR.

4. It was argued that the Applicant has been living separately from co-accused Asha Nagar since the year 2013 due to marital discord. In support, reliance was placed on maintenance proceedings instituted by Smt. Asha Nagar against the Applicant, as well as other civil litigations pending between them. It was submitted that these facts negate any presumption of common intention or joint participation in the alleged gang activity.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the predicate offences relied upon in the gang chart either stand quashed or are pending civil or criminal adjudication. Specifically, the Applicant was discharged in Case Crime No. 524 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, and the proceedings in Case Crime No. 480 of 2018 were quashed by this Hon’ble Court in C482 No. 782 of 2024, vide judgment dated 02.05.2024. In Case Crime No. 372 of 2021, a writ petition is pending with interim protection, and in Case Crime No. 57 of 2021, the dispute is primarily of a civil nature.

6. It was argued that despite the above, the investigating agency has mechanically arrayed the Applicant in the charge sheet without any concrete evidence indicating his active participation or common intention to commit any offence under the Gangsters Act. Learned Counsel emphasized that none of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC have attributed any overt act to the Applicant or stated that he collected money or was involved in the organization of the kitty operations. Criminal Misc. Application No. 896 of 2024, Hari Kant Nagar Vs State of Uttarakhand. 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. It was contended that the essential ingredients of Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 are not made out against the Applicant. There is no material to suggest that he derived any pecuniary or material benefit by means of threat, coercion, or criminal activity, nor that he was part of any structured gang formation operating to disturb public order or economic stability.

8. Learned Counsel also submitted that the summoning order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Dehradun, suffers from non-application of mind. It is argued that the court below failed to consider the absence of any prima facie material against the Applicant and did not record any specific finding as to how the statutory ingredients of Section 2/3 are satisfied in his case.

9. On these grounds, it was prayed that the proceedings against the Applicant in Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2024, including the chargesheet dated 04.05.2023 and the summoning order dated 05.03.2024, be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the application and submitted that the FIR was lodged on the basis of a duly approved gang chart, and the charge sheet was filed after a thorough investigation. It was submitted that the Applicant has a consistent criminal history involving similar economic offences, which have been taken into account in branding him as a gang member under the Act.

11. It was further argued that several complainants have provided statements confirming the modus operandi of the gang in defrauding members of the public through sham “kitty” schemes. According to the learned State Counsel, merely because the Applicant is related to the co-accused does not render him immune from prosecution where the cumulative material discloses a prima facie case of association and gain. Criminal Misc. Application No. 896 of 2024, Hari Kant Nagar Vs State of Uttarakhand. 3 Ashish Naithani J.

12. Learned State Counsel also pointed out that the discharge or quashing of some individual predicate offences does not negate the overall pattern of conduct, which is sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Gangsters Act. It was argued that the present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and should be dismissed.

13. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records

14. The FIR discloses that the Applicant, along with co-accused persons who are members of his family, was allegedly engaged in running fraudulent “kitty” schemes under various names and did not return money collected from the public. The FIR asserts that such activities were systematic and created a climate of fear and distrust among the public, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The gang chart, duly approved by senior police authorities, has also been filed.

15. The principal contention raised on behalf of the Applicant is that he has been falsely implicated due to his strained relationship with co- accused Asha Nagar, who is alleged to be the gang leader. It is urged that the Applicant has been residing separately from her since 2013, and that no material has been brought on record showing his participation in the alleged illegal activities.

16. The Court notes that while certain predicate offences may have ended in quashing or discharge, the totality of the Applicant’s criminal history, as reflected in the gang chart and annexures to the charge sheet, cannot be overlooked at this stage. It is also significant that the case at hand is registered under a special legislation intended to curb habitual and organized criminal activity, and the threshold for invoking the U.P. Gangsters Act is not identical to that for ordinary criminal prosecution.

17. On a plain reading of the charge sheet and accompanying witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, there are specific Criminal Misc. Application No. 896 of 2024, Hari Kant Nagar Vs State of Uttarakhand. 4 Ashish Naithani J. allegations from multiple complainants indicating that the Applicant was not merely a passive relative but was involved, along with other family members, in the overall conduct of financial schemes that failed to return public money. The presence of such material renders the Applicant’s role triable and cannot be dismissed as wholly baseless at this stage.

18. The Applicant’s reliance on his estrangement from the co-accused is a matter of factual defence. While the records show that certain civil and matrimonial disputes existed between the Applicant and co-accused Asha Nagar, the assertion that such estrangement conclusively exonerates the Applicant from the allegations forming the basis of the FIR and charge sheet is a question that can only be established through evidence at trial.

19. At this preliminary stage, the threshold is whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed with trial, not whether the prosecution is bound to succeed. The allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under a special statute and raise factual issues that require appreciation of evidence before the trial court.

20. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the ongoing proceedings at this stage. The application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Criminal Misc. Application No. 896 of 2024, Hari Kant Nagar Vs State of Uttarakhand. 5 Ashish Naithani J. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:07.07.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 896 of 2024, Hari Kant Nagar Vs State of Uttarakhand. 6 Ashish Naithani J.