New Delhi: A Dehradun-based businessman has been dubbed a “gangster” by the Uttarakhand police for his alleged involvement in six cases of cheating.
The businessman, who moved the Supreme Court against the Uttarakhand police for invoking the UP Gangsters Act, said the FIR registered under the “draconian” law in November last year named him as the “gang leader” of a group of four persons. has been described.
He is presumed to be a member of an organized crime syndicate in the FIR because of six pending cases of cheating, he said.
In his petition to quash the Gangster Act FIR, the businessman claimed that the cheating cases pertain to small business disputes with business partners and are civil in nature. Of the six cases, two have been settled, while one is “on the verge of disposal”, he added.
The FIR also mentions a rape case registered against him in Haryana. Though the local police have closed it, they submitted a copy of the closure report to the apex court.
Last week, a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant came to the rescue of the businessman after he stopped the Uttarakhand police from arresting him. The court had also stayed the notice issued under the UP Gangster Act to demolish the Girls Hostel being run by him in Dehradun.
Read also: Two police encounters, two states, 28 years apart. and what did the court say
‘Not fit to implement Gangster Act’
His counsel Rishi Malhotra told the bench that the allegations mentioned in the six FIRs pertained to pure business dealings. However, the police had converted civil disputes into criminal offences.
Even if the allegations are accepted as true, they do not constitute such a serious offense as to attract charges under the UP Gangsters Act. He said that the contents of the FIR reveal fraud which can always be resolved.
As per the UP Gangsters Act, quoted and cited in the petition, a “gang” means a group of persons who act either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or display of violence, or threats, or coercion or otherwise. does. Indulging in anti-social activities, with a view to disrupt public order or to obtain any undue temporal, economic, other material gain for himself or any other person.
Gangster means “a member or leader or organizer of a gang and includes any person who aids or aides in the activities of a gang (as mentioned above), even before the commission of such activities” or the latter or harbors any person who is involved in such work.” activities.”
On a challenge, the constitutional validity of the UP Gangster Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. and antisocial activities.
But in his case, the petitioner complained, the slight delay in making payment due to some dispute over the bill raised by the vendors has been termed as an “anti-social activity”.
The first FIR was registered in 2019 when he allegedly slapped the complainant. The second was recorded in July 2021 when a sale transaction did not take place. However, he said that the matter is on the verge of being resolved.
In the third case registered in January 2022, the petitioner was accused of non-payment to the vendor from whom he had purchased tiles for the construction of a hostel in Dehradun. Though the dispute amount was around Rs.23 lakhs, the petitioner paid Rs.12 lakhs and settled the matter.
The fourth case in April was related to non-payment of dues for purchase of building materials, following which he faced trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act and was acquitted, submitted the businessman.
While the fifth case filed in May alleged that the petitioner had not paid Rs 2 lakh to purchase sanitary fittings in 2020-21, the sixth case filed in November alleged that he had defaulted on a loan taken from the complainant. didn’t pay.
Finally, in November 2022, the petitioner was branded as a “gangster” to his “complete shock and dismay”.
Meanwhile, the petitioner had initiated legal proceedings against the police officer investigating the six cases. On his petition, the Uttarakhand High Court had in October also ordered to change the Investigating Officer (IO) of his cases.
But when he challenged the invocation of the Gangsters Act, the HC refused to grant relief to the businessman, taking note of the malafide intentions of the IO to initiate proceedings under the special law.
(Edited by Tony Rae)
Read also: Banned outfit SIMI still actively recruiting and raising funds, Modi government tells SC