Shraddha Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Background
The appellant's husband and others were accused of murdering a woman lawyer by deliberately ramming her scooter with a car following a property dispute among sisters over their late father's estate. Eight men were initially chargesheeted under the Gangsters Act, and later, during further investigation, the appellant (a "household lady," as her counsel described her) and two others were also implicated based on call recordings and added to the Gangsters Act case. She challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, arguing she could not be branded a "Gangster" on the strength of a single FIR/case, but the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court framed the core question as whether a person can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act based on just one FIR/chargesheet, or whether repeated offences are required. Examining the statutory definitions of "Gang" and "Gangster," the Court held that, unlike some other organised-crime statutes, the U.P. Gangsters Act contains no requirement of multiple offences, even a single anti-social act listed in Section 2(b), done to disturb public order or gain undue advantage, is enough to attract prosecution. Since the appellant was alleged to be part of a conspiracy to murder for pecuniary gain (a property dispute), along with co-accused already facing gangster charges, the Court agreed she could also be prosecuted. The appeals were dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Under UP's Gangsters Act, a person cannot escape prosecution merely by arguing they were involved in only one incident, even a single serious offence, if it fits the Act's definition of an anti-social activity linked to a "gang," is legally sufficient to invoke the law.