Allahabad High Court
Shyam Bahadur Rai And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Arun Kumar Deshwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172564-DB
Reserved on 27.07.2023
Delivered on 28.08.2023
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12367 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shyam Bahadur Rai And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Muktesh Kumar Singh,Ramkripal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant writ petition seeks writ of certorari for quashing of the FIR dated 27.06.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.0105 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Ahraura, District- Mirzapur.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners do not comprise a gang. Prosecution under the Gangsters Act is on the basis of single case under the Cow Slaughter Act against each of the petitioners wherein, the petitioners are on bail. The prosecution of the petitioners is malafide besides being false and concocted.
4. It is next submitted that there is total non-compliance of Rule 5(3) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules. It is also submitted that no action disturbing public order has been attributed to the petitioners nor have they committed any violence. Therefore, also the petitioners are not covered by the definition of the word "Gang" under the Act.
5. Learned AGA has refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that it is legally permissible to prosecute a person under the Gangsters Act on the basis of a single case.
6. Insofar as the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no compliance of Rule 5(3) of the Rules, it would be relevant to note that no such ground or averment is to be found in the writ petition.
7. Rule 5 provides the general rules for initiation of proceedings under the Gangsters Act. In the absence of any specific averment in the petition with regard to the argument that there is non-compliance of Rule 5(3), the argument has no basis as no foundation for such an argument has been laid out in the writ petition. The argument, therefore, has been made only to be rejected.
8.The other contention that the petitioners have not resorted to any violence is also liable to be rejected. Section 2(b) of the Act which defines the word "gang" has been considered in the judgment in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10919 of 2023 titled as Deepak Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others and it has been held as follows:-
"In our considered opinion, bare reading of the provision itself would show that violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation or coercion are not the only conditions specified under Section 2(b) of the Act. What is important and material at least for the case at hand, is the word "otherwise". The word "otherwise" in our opinion means that the words in Section 2(b) occurring before it namely violence, or its threat, intimidation & coercion are not exhaustive but only indicative or illustrative. The word "otherwise" would include within its ambit any act which disturbs public order or is aimed at acquiring temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage and such act is anti-social. Thus, in view of the word "otherwise" a person who disturbs public order or gains undue temporal, pecuniary or material advantage for himself by indulging any anti-social activities would fall within the scope of the word "gang" occurring in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act."
9. In view of the law laid down above, the second submission of learned counsel for the petitioners also lacks substance.
10. It is settled law that the provisions of the Gangsters Act can be invoked on the basis of a single case also.
11. In view of the above and since the allegations in the first information report contain the ingredients of cognizable offences, the first information report cannot be quashed.
12. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail/bail.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023/Aditya Tripathi
