New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday shielded an advocate from arrest in connection with a case lodged against him under the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan took note of the submission of the petitioner, advocate Sandeep Kumar, that he is alleged to be the deed-writer of two sale deeds allegedly executed in 2014.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the petitioner’s plea to quash the FIR registered in July last year under Sections 2 and 3 of the UP Gangsters Act.
The special leave petition (SLP) filed before the apex court contended that the above FIR was without any legally tenable basis.
“Neither the base FIRs nor the essential of disturbance of public order to constitute a ‘gang’ within a meaning of Section 2(b), nor the factum of deriving any advantage insofar as petitioner is concerned, is apparent, nor the threshold of ‘indulging into anti-social activity’, forms part of subjective satisfaction of authorities to initiate proceeding under Gangster Act,” contended the SLP filed through advocate Anurag Ojha.
It added that in both the base FIRs, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he is the deed writer of the alleged sale-deeds executed in April 2014.
As per the SLP, the Allahabad High Court had already stayed further proceedings in the first base FIR, and ordered that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner in relation to the second base FIR. It added that the writing of a deed was purely a professional engagement to which the petitioner is entitled as a legal practitioner.
Further, it contended that for the initiation of a proceeding under the Gangster Act, a prima facie examination of the allegation underlying registration of base FIRs and the consequent preparation of the gang chart is necessary. “The petitioner has performed his legal duty in drafting the sale deed, if the allegations are taken at their face value to be correct and the same cannot be a basis to saddle him with any proceedings, lest the criminal proceedings,” contended the SLP.
(IANS)
