Allahabad High Court
Arvinder Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 September, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:155976
Reserved On : 04.08.2025
Delivered On : 03.09.2025
Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21905 of 2023
Applicant :- Arvinder Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Khaneja,Vrindavan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Connected with
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27297 of 2023
Applicant :- Arvinder Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- M.N. Singh,Mahesh Narain Singh,Vrindavan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Connected with
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28106 of 2023
Applicant :- Ramandeep And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- M.N. Singh,Mahesh Narain Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Connected with
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22133 of 2023
Applicant :- Ramandeep Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kishore,Rahul Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vrindavan Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21905 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others).
2. I have also heard Mr. Vrindavan Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27297 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
3. Mr. Rahul Agarwal along with Mr. Pawan Kishore, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party 1 in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28106 of 2023 (Ramandeep and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) have also been heard.
4. Lastly Mr. Rahul Agarwal along with Mr. Pawan Kishore, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party 1 and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 have been heard in Criminal Misc. Application 482 Cr.P.C. 22133 of 2023 (Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another)
5. Perused the record.
6. Applicants-Arvinder Singh and 2 others have filed Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21905 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) with the following prayer:-
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the Police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C dated 06.12.2022 filed in Case Crime No.0558 OF 2022, under Section 147,353,447,323,504,420 I.P.C. arising out of First Information Report dated 08.07.2022.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Case No.6406 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0558 of 2022, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly.
It is also prayed that during the pendency of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case Crime No.0558 OF 2022, under Section 147, 353,447,323,504,420 I.P.C. arising out of First Information Report dated 08.07.2022, and / or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Applicants-Arvinder Singh and 2 others have filed Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27297 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) with the following prayer:-
It is, therefore, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the cognizance order dated 31.3.2023 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 passed in Sessions Case No. 872 of 2023 (State vs. Ramandeep and others) Special Case No.36 of 2023 and the Charge-Sheet dated 3.2.2023 (Annexure No. 25 to the accompanying affidavit) filed in Case Crime No. 0992/2022 dated 6.12.2022, registered at Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings ofSessions Case No.872/2023 (State vs. Ramandeep and others) Special Case No. 36 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.0992/2022 under Sections 2/3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 dated 6.12.2022 registered at Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5/Special Judge Gangster Act, Bareilly during the pendency of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Applicants-Ramandeep and 2 others have filed Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28106 of 2023 (Ramandeep and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) with the following prayer:-
It is, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application and to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure No.14 to the accompanying affidavit), arising out of Case Crime No.0992/2022 and the impugned Cognizance order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure No.15 to the accompanying affidavit) passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5/Special Judge Gangster Act, Bareilly and the entire proceedings of consequent case being Sessions Case No.872 of 2023, Special Case No.36/2023 (State versus Ramandeep and others) under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Case Crime No.0992/2022, Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5/Special Judge Gangster Act, Bareilly and/or pass such other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Sessions Case No.872 of 2023, Special Case No.36/2023 (State versus Ramandeep and others) under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Case Crime No.0992/2022, Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5/Special Judge Gangster Act, Bareilly during the pendency of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Applicants-Ramandeep and 2 others have filed Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22133 of 2023 (Ramandeep and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) with the following prayer:-
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet dated 05.12.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0558/2022, Cognizance Order dated 06.12.2022 and entire proceedings of consequent case being Case No. 6406/2022 State Versus Ravindra Kumar Gupta and others, Under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Case Crime No. 0558/2022, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
10. Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21905 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) came up for admission on 24.02.2025 and this Court passed the following order:-
1. Heard Mr. Vrindavan Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27297 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others) filed by present applicants is also pending before this Court.
4. In view of above, connected aforementioned application along with this application.
5. Matter shall re-appear as unlisted on 04.03.2025.
6. The matter shall be listed separately from the regular list of unlisted cases.
7. When the matter is listed next, the details of both the applications shall be duly published in the cause list.
Order Date :- 24.2.2025
11. Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22133 of 2023 (Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) came up for admission on 15.06.2023 and this Court passed the following order;-
Heard Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of impugned chargesheet dated 05.12.2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0558 of 2022, cognizance order dated 06.12.2022 and entire proceedings of Case No. 6406 of 2022 ( State vs. Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Others) under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station- Izzatnagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the First Information Report has been lodged against Rajiv Kumar, Vishal Gangwar, Radheshyam Rana, Ravindra Kumar Gupta and 5-6 unknown persons with the allegations that the Gata No. 825 area 7714.058 sqm situated in village Biharman Nagla, Bareilly was declared surplus land by the prescribed authority and possession was handed over to Bareilly Development Authority on 16.11.1990 and the named accused persons and other unknown persons are trying to encroach the land of Bareilly Development Authority. The applicants were not named in the First Information Report. The investigating officer without conducting fair investigation has submitted chargesheet against the applicants and learned Magistrate in a routine manner had summoned the applicants.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicants are Director of Alliance Builders and Contractors Ltd and S.A. Properties is associated firm of Alliance Builders. Vishal Gangwar, who was made an accused in the First Information Report had purchased the land of Khasra No. 826 area 1945.55 sqm from S.A. Properties and through registered sale deed dated 17.01.2022 and the possession was handed over to Vishal Gangwar. It is alleged in the First Information Report that Vishal Gangwar and other accused persons are trying to encroach the land of Gata No. 825. It is further submitted that the land sold by S.A. Properties to Vishal Gangwar through registered sale deed and possession was handed over to Vishal Gangwar. The Investigating Officer after investigation has exonerated Vishal Gangwar and other named accused persons and chargesheet has been submitted against the present applicants. There is no evidence or material that the applicants had encroached the land as alleged in the First Information Report. It is further submitted that the other chargesheeted co-accused, namely, Arvinder Singh and two others had also approached to this Court by filing Application U/S 482 No. 21905 of 2023 and Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.06.2023 had granted interim protection to the co-accused chargesheeted with the applicants. The role assigned to the applicants are similar and identical to the role assigned to the co-accused who have already been granted interim protection by this Court and as such, the applicants are also entitled for same relief.
Matter requires consideration.
Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsels for the parties may file counter affidavit within one month.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
List this matter after five weeks along with Application U/S 482 No. 21905 of 2023 before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
12. It is thus apparent that aforementioned applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were connected. By reason of above, the same have been listed together.
13. Counsel for the parties agreed that the matter be heard and decided finally at the admission stage itself without formally admitting the aforementioned applications and summoning the record. In view of above and as provided under the Rules of the Court, above-mentioned applications were heard together and are now being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
14. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 07.07.2022, a delayed FIR dated 08.07.2022 was lodged by first informant, Sunil Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly and was registered as Case Crime No. 0558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 353, 447, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid FIR, four persons namely (1) Rajeev Kumar, (2) Vishal Gangwar, (3) Radhey Shyam Rana and (4) Ravindra Kumar Gupta were nominated as named accused, whereas 5-6 unknown persons were also arraigned as accused.
15. Gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that land comprised in Survey Plot No. 825 (area 7714.058 sq. mtrs.) situate in Village Biharman Nagla, District-Bareilly was declared surplus in proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. It is alleged that thereafter, the Bareilly Development Authority was given possession of aforementioned land on 16.11.1990. However, certain land mafias encroached upon the aforesaid land and are adamant to destroy the same. As per information received from the spot, it is the named accused, who are indulging in aforesaid exercise. The FIR further records that named accused are alleged to have restrained the contractor and his workmen, who were working on the disputed land, pursuant to the work undertaken by the Bareilly Development Authority to construct a boundary wall along the disputed land for protecting the same.
16. Subsequent to aforementioned FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of following persons is established in the crime in question i.e. (1) Amandeep, (2) Ramandeep, (3) Hani Kumar, (4) Amreinder Singh, (5) Yuvraj Singh, (6) Satveer Singh and (7) Ravindra Kumar Gupta. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 08.07.2022 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., whereby aforementioned persons were charge-sheeted in the following manner;- (1) Amandeep, (2) Ramandeep, (3) Hani Kumar, (4) Amreinder Singh, (5) Yuvraj Singh and (6) Satveer Singh were charged sheeted under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, whereas (7) Ravindra Kumar Gupta was charge sheeted under Sections 147, 447, 353, 323, 504 IPC.
17. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Resultantly Criminal Case No. 6406 of 2022 (State Vs. Amandeep and Others), under Sections 147, 447, 353, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District- Bareilly came to be registered in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bairelly. Accordingly, concerned Magistrate summoned the charge sheeted accused. The said exercise was taken by the Magistrate concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 06.12.2022.
18. Thus feeling aggrieved by the charge sheet/police report dated 05.12.2022 submitted in Case Crime No. 0558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 353, 447, 323, 504, 420 IPC arising out of the FIR dated 08.07.2022 as well as the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 06.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 6406 of 2022 (State Vs. Amandeep and Others), under Sections 147, 447, 353, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District- Bareilly, the following applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed;-
(i). Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21905 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)
(ii). Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22133 of 2023 (Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
19. Another FIR dated 13.11.2022 was lodged by first informant Raman Kumar, Junior Engineer, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly and was registered as Case Crime No. 0949 of 2022, under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and Section 28(1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Develometn Act, 1973. In the aforesaid FIR, 17 persons namely (1) Jaswar, (2) Mukhtareaam Jagdish Prasad, (3) Bhagwan Das, (4) Sukhpal, (5) Smt. Sundar Devi, (6) Satveer Singh, (7) Mukhtareaam Ramdas, (8) Amar Singh, (9) Sarvesh Kumar, Partner S.K. Associates Stadium Road, Bareilly, (10) Rajeev Kumar, Partner Ashish Enterprises, (11) Dharmendra Singh, (12) Smt. Shalini Yadav, (13) Julfiqara Ahmad, (14) Saleem Ahmad, (15) Smt. Babita Giri, (16) Dalbindar and (17) Honey Kumar Bhatia have been nominated as named accused.
20. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR, Sarvesh Kumar and 2 Others approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17644 of 2022 (Sarvesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order dated 22.11.2022 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 22.11.2022 is reproduced herein below:-
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State-respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0949 of 2022 under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended 1997), Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
The first information report has been challenged on the ground that the present criminal proceeding is an offshoot of U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The present first information report has been lodged against the petitioners on account of the civil dispute. A bare perusal of the FIR, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that 2/3 part of ceiling surplus land bearing Khasra No. 825 area 0.7714 hectare situated in Village Biharman Nagla was illegally sold on 20.3.2003 by one Jasbir being power of attorney holder of Jagdish Prasad S/o Tula Ram, Sukhpal S/o Tula Ram and Smt. Sunder Devi W/o Tularam as well as by Satvir Singh S/o Raghuvir Singh being power of attorney holder of Ram Das and Amar Singh sons of Tara Chand to S.K. Associates through partner Sarvesh Kumar, for sale consideration of Rs. 3,80,750/- whereas value of said land as per government rate was Rs. 25,70,000/-. The possession of aforesaid land has been transferred to Bareilly Development Authority on 16.11.1990. It is alleged in the FIR that after purchasing the aforesaid land, S.K. Associates had sold the same to others by cheating. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has been lodged on false and concocted story with malafide intention and ulterior motive. The allegations of cheating or fraud levelled against the petitioners are false and no offence under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended 1997) are made out against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, states that the said proceedings are subject matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19391 of 2020 before the Division Bench wherein the Bareilly Development Authority has already filed a short counter affidavit and a detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the State. Since the pleadings have been exchanged and the matter is likely to be listed on 24.11.2022. A bare perusal of the FIr, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. Even though the proceedings are pending and neither the charge-sheet nor the final report has been submitted in the present case. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd & ors. AIR 2006 SC 2780, wherein it has been held that the tendency to convert a purely civil dispute into criminal cases is to be deprecated. He has also placed reliance on the judgement of Apex court in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021 (Randheer Singh Vs. the State of U.P. and ors) decided on 02.9.2021. Learned counsel submits that in case no reprieve, at this stage, is accorded to the petitioners, they would suffer irreparable loss.
Learned AGA fairly states that the instructions are still awaited. He prays for and is accorded a week's time to obtain instructions in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 29.11.2022.
Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.
21. Aforesaid writ petition was taken up on 14.12.2022 and this Court passed the following order;-
Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
Initially, the matter was taken up on 22.11.2022 and on the said date, the Court had proceeded to pass following order:-
"The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0949 of 2022 under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended 1997), Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
The first information report has been challenged on the ground that the present criminal proceeding is an offshoot of U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The present first information report has been lodged against the petitioners on account of the civil dispute. A bare perusal of the FIR, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that 2/3 part of ceiling surplus land bearing Khasra No. 825 area 0.7714 hectare situated in Village Biharman Nagla was illegally sold on 20.3.2003 by one Jasbir being power of attorney holder of Jagdish Prasad S/o Tula Ram, Sukhpal S/o Tula Ram and Smt. Sunder Devi W/o Tularam as well as by Satvir Singh S/o Raghuvir Singh being power of attorney holder of Ram Das and Amar Singh sons of Tara Chand to S.K. Associates through partner Sarvesh Kumar, for sale consideration of Rs. 3,80,750/- whereas value of said land as per government rate was Rs. 25,70,000/-. The possession of aforesaid land has been transferred to Bareilly Development Authority on 16.11.1990. It is alleged in the FIR that after purchasing the aforesaid land, S.K. Associates had sold the same to others by cheating. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has been lodged on false and concocted story with malafide intention and ulterior motive. The allegations of cheating or fraud levelled against the petitioners are false and no offence under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended 1997) are made out against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, states that the said proceedings are subject matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19391 of 2020 before the Division Bench wherein the Bareilly Development Authority has already filed a short counter affidavit and a detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the State. Since the pleadings have been exchanged and the matter is likely to be listed on 24.11.2022. A bare perusal of the FIr, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. Even though the proceedings are pending and neither the charge-sheet nor the final report has been submitted in the present case. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd & ors. AIR 2006 SC 2780, wherein it has been held that the tendency to convert a purely civil dispute into criminal cases is to be deprecated. He has also placed reliance on the judgement of Apex court in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021 (Randheer Singh Vs. the State of U.P. and ors) decided on 02.9.2021. Learned counsel submits that in case no reprieve, at this stage, is accorded to the petitioners, they would suffer irreparable loss.
Learned AGA fairly states that the instructions are still awaited. He prays for and is accorded a week's time to obtain instructions in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 29.11.2022.
Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation."
Thereafter the matter was taken up on 29.11.2022 and on the request of learned A.G.A. the case was passed. The matter was directed to be listed today i.e. 14.12.2022 and the interim order was extended till the next date of listing.
Today, when the matter is taken up, Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the interim order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Writ C No.19391 of 2022, wherein, the Division Bench has considered the undertaking, given by learned counsel for the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) that till the next date of listing, the BDA would not change the nature of the land in question and also would not raise any further construction. The said undertaking was extended again on 01.12.2022 by the Division Bench and meanwhile, learned Standing Counsel was asked to place on record the relevant material. He submits that the pleadings have already been exchanged in the aforementioned case and the matter is ripe for final disposal. Therefore, the interim order passed by this Court dated 22.11.2022 is to be extended. He submits that the petitioners undertake to cooperate in the ongoing investigation in the matter.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is accorded four weeks' time to file response in the matter.
List this matter alongwith connected matter after four weeks. The interim order is extended till the next date of listing.
Meanwhile, the parties may exchange the pleadings in both the matters. On the next date the parties may also apprise the progress in the ongoing investigation.
22. Ultimately, aforementioned writ petition was dismissed as having rendered infructuous, vide order dated 22.11.2023, which reads as under;-
1. Learned AGA states that after investigation, the police has already filed chargesheet against the petitioners.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.
23. Ramandeep Singh and Another approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17899 of 2022 (Ramandeep Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order dated 24.11.2022 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 24.11.2022 is reproduced herein below:-
Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0949 of 2022 under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended 1997), Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the co-accused has already been accorded interim protection by this Court on 22.11.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17644 of 2022 and as such the petitioners being on similar footing are also entitled for similar relief.
The matter requires consideration.
List and connect with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17644 of 2022.
Issue notice to the respondent no. 4.
All the respondents are accorded six weeks time to file counter affidavit. One week, thereafter, is accorded to file rejoinder affidavit.
Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.
24. Ultimately, aforementioned writ petition was dismissed as having rendered infructuous, vide order dated 22.11.2023, which reads as under;-
1. Learned AGA states that after investigation, the police has already filed chargesheet against the petitioners.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.
25. Subsequently, Arvinder Singh and Another filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18146 of 2022 (Arvinder Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order dated 28.11.2022 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 28.11.2022 is reproduced herein below:-
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0949 of 2022 under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended 1997), Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the co-accused has already been accorded interim protection by this Court on 24.11.2022 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17899 of 2022 and as such the petitioners being on similar footing are also entitled for similar relief.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the respondent no. 4.
All the respondents are accorded four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, is accorded to file rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter and connect with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17899 of 2022 and 17644 of 2022.
Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.
26. Aforementioned writ petition was dismissed as having rendered infructuous, vide order dated 22.11.2023, which reads as under;-
1. Learned AGA states that after investigation, the police has already filed chargesheet against the petitioners.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.
27. During pendency of aforementioned applications, proceedings under the U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 were initiated against applicants. Resultantly, an FIR dated 06.12.2022 came to be lodged by the Station House Officer, Police Station Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0992 of 2022, under Sections 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons namely (1) Ramandeep Singh, (2) Amandeep Singh, (3) Honey Kumar Bhatia, (4) Arvinder Singh, (5) Yuvraj Singh and (6) Satveer Singh were nominated as named accused.
28. As per the gang chart attached to the aforesaid FIR, the following details have been mentioned;-
Sl. No.
Name of accused
Details of cases registered against accused
1.
Ramandeep Singh Son of Gurcharan Singh
(i). Case Crime No. 949 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
(ii). Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
2.
Amandeep Singh Son of Gurcharan Singh
(i). Case Crime No. 949 of 2022, under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
(ii). Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
3.
Honey Kumar Bhatia Son of Puran Chand Bhatia
(i). Case Crime No. 949 of 2022, under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
(ii). Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
4.
Arvinder Singh Son of Raghuveer Singh
(i). Case Crime No. 949 of 2022, under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
(ii). Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
5.
Yuvraj Singh Son of Raghuveer Singh
(i). Case Crime No. 949 of 2022, under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
(ii). Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
6.
Satveer Singh Son of Raghuveer Singh
(i). Case Crime No. 949 of 2022, under Sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
(ii). Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly
29. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned FIR, accused Arvinder Singh and 2 Others approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19548 of 2022 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order dated 19.12.2022 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below:-
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi and Shri Manish Tewary, learned Senior Advocates, assisted by Shri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.N. Mullah, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 6.12.2022, registered as Case Crime No.0992 of 2022 under Sections 2/3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly and its consequent proceedings. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned Senior Advocates appearing for the petitioners submit that as per Khatauni of 1382 Fasli, Thakur Das, Tara Chand and Tula Ram were recorded tenure holders of Gata No.825 situated in village Bihar Man Nagla, District Bareilly. Proceedings of urban ceilings were initiated the tenure holder namely Tara Chand registered as Case No.1820/122/82 (State of U.P. vs. Tara Chand), wherein by an ex-parte order dated 04.4.1985 passed under Section 8 (4) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short, Act, 1976), 6932.23 sq. mtrs of land of the said tenure holder was declared surplus. Thereafter, Tara Chand died and the notice was served on his legal heirs on 07.1.1989 to which no objection was filed. Thereafter, the notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1976 was issued on 30.10.1989 but the same was not served. The notices under Section 10 (1), 10 (3) and 10(5) of the Act, 1976 were also issued on 25.10.1989, 27.6.1990 and 19.6.1993 respectively but no effort was ever made by the respondents to take possession of the surplus land. Meanwhile, the Act, 1976 was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealing Act, 1999 (Act, 1999), which was adopted by the State of U.P. with effect from 18.3.1999. According to Sections 3 and 4 of the Repealing Act, all proceedings under the principal Act shall stand abated, if the possession of the surplus land has not been taken by the State at the date of the application of Repealing Act and the surplus land was free from provisions of the Act, 1976. Consequently, legal heirs of Tara Chand had sold the land in question through registered sale deed dated 20.3.2003 in favour of the firm S.K. Associates and the name of purchaser was recorded in the revenue record on 22.5.2003. Since execution of the sale deed the said firm in question was in peaceful actual physical possession of the land in question. Once the respondent authorities tried to interfere in its possession, then S.K. Associates filed Writ C No.19391 of 2022 (S.K. Associates vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) in which an order was passed by the coordinate Bench on 25.11.2022 to the following effect:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in possession over 2363.47 sq. meters of plot no.825 situated in Bihar Man Nagla, District Bareilly. To prove its possession, the petitioner has shown the khasras starting from 1416 Fasli to 1428 Fasli.
Learned Standing Counsel may produce the records.
Place this case on 1.12.2022 as fresh at 2.00 PM.
When learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo, Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Bareilly Development Authority very fairly stated before the Court that till the next date of listing, the Bareilly Development Authority would not change the nature of the land in question and also would not raise any further construction.
Under such circumstances, no further order is required to be passed at this stage.?
Learned Senior Counsels further submit that the aforesaid writ petition is pending and as a counterblast to the aforesaid proceeding, the first information report was lodged by the respondents on 13.11.2022 and the same was registered as Case Crime No.0949/2022 under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended in 1997) at Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. The said FIR was assailed before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.17644 of 2022, 17899 of 2022 and 18146 of 2022 in which vide orders dated 22.11.2022, 24.11.2022 and 28.11.2022, the arrest of the petitioners and others have been stayed till the next date of listing and the interim orders were extended on 14.12.2022. The respondent authorities lodged another FIR dated 08.7.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0558/2022 under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly against four named persons and other unknown persons. After passing of the aforesaid interim orders of staying arrest of petitioners, the State respondents have lodged the impugned FIR on 06.12.2022, alleging that accused persons, namely, Ramandeep Singh, Amandeep Singh, Hani Kumar Bhatiya, Arvinder Singh (petitioner no.1), Yuvraj Singh (petitioner no.2) and Satvir Singh (petitioner no.3) have jointly formed a criminal gang, which is active at district level for fulfillment of worldly/financial benefit by involving in anti social activities, grabbing government and other land and by sale of it use to commit heinous offence. As per gang chart, two cases have been mentioned against the petitioners, which have been made the basis of lodging of the impugned F.I.R.. It also appears that first case shown against the petitioners in gang chart is as Case Crime No. 0949 of 2022, under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC and 28(1) U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Amended 1997) at Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly and the second case is as Case Crime No. 558 of 2022 under Sections 147, 447, 420 IPC, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly in which notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been issued. Both the cases related to civil dispute. There is no averment of use of force or violence qua the petitioners. Petitioners are Directors of the Company, namely Alliance Builders and Contractors Limited having its registered office at Stadium Road, Bareilly. Another company, namely, S.K. Associates had business relation with the Company of the petitioners. Once the Division Bench of this Court has already accorded reprieve staying arrest of the petitioners and the said interim orders of arrest have been extended then in most arbitrary manner, proceeding under the Gangsters Act has been initiated against the petitioners. Lastly, learned Senior Advocates have placed reliance on paragraph no. 27 of a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora and another vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033.
Learned AGA, on the other hand, states that so far as criminal cases mentioned in the gang chart are concerned, charge-sheets have been submitted and only thereafter, approval of the gang chart has been accorded by the authorities.
Matter requires consideration.
All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Petitioners shall have two weeks, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit. List immediately thereafter.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as briefly discussed above, as an interim measure, till the next date of listing the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned First Information Report, provided they cooperate in the investigation.
30. The aforesaid writ petition is said to be pending.
31. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with the statutory investigation of above-mentioned case crime number and ultimately, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 03.02.2023 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby and whereunder the following persons i.e. (1) Ramandeep Singh, (2) Amandeep Singh, (3) Honey Kumar Bhatia, (4) Arvinder Singh, (5) Yuvraj Singh and (6) Satveer Singh were charge sheeted under Sections 2(b)(1/3) of U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986.
32. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.-5/Special Judge, Gangsters Act in exercise of jurisdiciton under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Since the High Court, vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19660 of 2022 (Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), had granted interim protection to the accused against their arrest, therefore, the accused persons were directed to file the current status of aforementioned writ petition.
33. Thus feeling aggrieved by aforementioned charge sheet/police report dated 03.02.2023 submitted in Case Crime No. 0992 of 2022, under Sections 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly as well as the Cognizance Taking Order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.-5/Special Judge, Gangster Act, applicants-Arvinder Singh, Yuvraj Singh and Satveer Singh have appraoched this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27297 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others).
34. From the facts as noted above, it is apparent that two proceedings are pending against applicants before this Court. The first relates to the criminal prosecution of applicants pursuant to the FIR dated 08.07.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 353, 447, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly, wherein the charge sheet dated 05.12.2022 was submitted as well as the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 6406 of 2022 (State Vs. Amandeep and Others), under Sections 147, 447, 353, 323, 504, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District- Bareilly, the following applications challenging the proceedings of above-mentioned criminal case have been filed;-
(i). Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21905 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)
(ii). Criminal Misc. Application 482 Cr.P.C. 22133 of 2023 (Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
35. The second dispute relates to the veracity of the proceedings under the U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 giving rise to following applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;-
(i). Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27297 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
(ii). Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28106 of 2023 (Ramandeep and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
36. It transpires from record that dispute relates to Survey Plot No. 825 (area 7714.058 sq. mtrs) situate in Village Biharman Nagla, District-Bareilly, which was subjected to proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The said land was sold by the land owner to M/s S.K. Associates. The issue raised on behalf of the subsequent purchaser that possession of the land was neither voluntarily surrendered nor taken forcibly in accordance with law by the State was negated by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 passed by a Division Bench in WRIT-C No. 19391 of 2022 (S.K. Associates Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others).
37. Against aforesaid judgment and order dated 25.01.2023, SLP (Civil) No. 10139 of 2023 (S.K. Associates Vs. State of U.P. and Others) was filed before Supreme Court, wherein an interim order dated 18.05.2023 was passed. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below:-
Issue notice returnable within six weeks.
Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, learned AOR accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner shall take steps to serve the rest of the respondents.
In addition to normal mode of service, liberty to serve upon the standing counsel for the state is granted.
Considering the facts and circumstances, until further orders of this Court, status quo in respect of the nature and possession over the land in dispute as it exists today shall be maintained by both the parties.
38. It is thus apparent that the issue regarding taking over possession of the land declared as excess vacant land in proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act is engaging the attention of Supreme Court.
39. Learned counsel for applicants urged that a similar dispute previously came to be registered as Case Crime No. 0949 of 2022 (State Vs. Satveer Singh and Others), under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 28-1 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. In the aforesaid Case Crime Number, various persons were charge sheeted in the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer.
40. Challenging the proceedings of aforementioned Case Crime Number, the following applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed before this Court;-
(i). Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22134 of 2023 (Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
(ii). Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41154 of 2023 (Munish Chandra Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
(iii). Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21921 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)
41. It is further contended by the learned counsel for applicants that the basic facts giving rise to above-mentioned criminal proceedings as well as the present criminal proceedings are substantially the same. However, irrespective of the fact that the issue with regard to title of Bareilly Development Authority over the land in dispute is subjudice before Supreme Court, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court proceeded to consider the merits of aforementioned case crime number/criminal misc. applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By undertaking a detailed and elaborate exercise, the Court examined the facts as on record in length and detail, the issues that cropped up for consideration therein, the law laid down by Apex Court in respect of the issues that had emerged for consideration. Having undertaken aforesaid exercise, the Court came to the conclusion that the following three questions arise for determination;-
(a) Firstly, the informant/complainant cannot be taken as a person aggrieved for the purpose of launching the criminal proceedings.
(b). Secondly, the criminal proceedings in question are liable to be quashed on the ground that there is a dispute between the parties, which is civil in nature and is sought to be given a criminal colour, only with a view to pressurize the applicants and to hide the irregularities.
(c) Thirdly, no offence under the relevant sections is made out.
42. All the three questions were considered by Court exhaustively. Ultimately, Court returned the following findings;-
(i). The authories of State of U.P. or B.D.A. were not the persons who were competent to lodge the complaint. It is only the subsequent purchaser i.e. persons to whom M/s S.K. Associates after acquiring title by means of sale deed executed in their favour by legal heirs of original tenure holder, have sold the land in question, who could have lodged the complaint. Thus the informant was not the right person to lodge the FIR, vide Paragraphs 72 and 73.
(ii). The Court, upon scrutiny of the facts and circumstances, (which are common, in the proceedings concluded by this Court by means of aforementioned judgment as well as the present criminal proceedings) came to the conclusion that the issue with regard to right, title, interest and possession over the land declared surplus in proceedings under the U.P. Urban Land Ceiling Act is the subject matter of the dispute pending before the Supreme Court. The Court thus came to the conclusion that in case, the same is decided in favour of applicants, allegation regarding criminal offence against applicants would have no legs to stand as the decision will be binding upon criminal court proving that the applicants have not committed any criminal offence, vide paragraph 89.
43. The Court examined the facts of the case in the light of ingredients of charging Section as well as observations made by Apex Court in various judgments with regard to the commission of an offence under Sections 415, 420 IPC. The Court further took notice of the fact that the land declared surplus was purchased by M/s S.K. Associates, who in turn executed sale deeds in favour of different persons (i.e. the applicants in the criminal misc. applications decided by this Court as well as the present applications). On the above conspectus, the Court came to the conclusion that since the issue with regard to the right, title, interest in the land in dispute and further the rightful possession over the same is the subject matter of the dispute pending before the Supreme Court, no offence as alleged can be said to be made out against the subsequent purchasers. As such, no offence as alleged can be said to be made out against the accused. Accordingly, the Court allowed the above-mentioned criminal misc. applications vide paragraph 107.
44. Learned counsel for applicants submitted before this Court that there is no such distinguishing feature in the present applications on the basis of which, the judgment rendered by this Court in Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 7500, can be so distinguished so as to distinguish the same. It was thus urged that since the issues involved in present application are similar and identical to the issues raised and pressed in aforementioned applications decided by the judgment and order referred to above, the present applications are also liable to be decided on the same terms.
45. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing the first informant in respetive applications initially opposed the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants but could not distinguish the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for applicants i.e. Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others (Supra).
46. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that subsequently, the facts involved in present applications are similar to the facts involved in the applications decided by this Court, vide judgment and order rendered in the case of Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others (Supra). No such distinguishing feature could be pointed out either by the learned A.G.A. or the learned counsel representing first informant, on the basis of which, it could be reasonably concluded that the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others (Supra) is distinguishable.
47. Once a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the same set of facts has taken a view, therefore, in line with the principles of judicial propriety and consistency in judicial pronouncement this Court does not find any good ground to distinguish aforementioned judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court nor the Court finds any good reason to take a different view.
48. In view of the discussion made above, aforementioned applications i.e. Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21905 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and Criminal Misc. Application 482 Cr.P.C. 22133 of 2023 (Ramandeep Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) succeed and are liable to be allowed.
49. They are, accordingly, allowed.
50. The impugned charge sheet dated 06.12.2022 submitted in Case Crime No. 0558 of 2022, under Sections 147, 353, 447, 323, 504, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly resulting in Case No. 6406 of 2022 (State Vs. Ravindra Kumar and Others), under Sections 147, 353, 447, 323, 504, 420 IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case leading to Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21905 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22133 of 2023 (Ramandeep and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) are, hereby, quashed.
51. Sofar as the second dispute is concerned, this Court finds that all the accused-applicants have been implicated under Sections 2(b)/1/3) of U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 on the basis of two criminal cases i.e. Case Crime No. 949 of 2022, under Sections 147, 447, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly and Case Crime No. 558 of 2022, under Section 147, 447, 420 IPC. Some of the Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions filed challenging the FIR dated 13.11.2022 leading to Case Crime No. 0949 of 2022, under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly, however, dismissed, vide orders dated 22.11.2023, which have already been referred to above.
52. However, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19548 of 2022 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) challenging the FIR dated 16.12.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0992 of 2022, under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 is still pending.
53. It is thus apparent that the veracity of the FIR dated 16.12.2022 giving rise to Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28106 of 2023 (Ramandeep and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27297 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) is still pending. The issue as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, aforementioned FIR can be sustained or no proceedings under the U.P. Gangster and Acti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 can be maintained against accused-applicants is directly the subject matter of above-mentioned writ petition, which is pending.
54. Apart from above, the Apex Court has now held that merely upon submission of charge sheet/police report, the writ petition challenging the veracity of the FIR does not become infructuous, Reference in this regard be made to the following judgments (i). Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 59, (ii). Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, (iii). Sushil Sethi and Another Vs. State of Arunanchal Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 240, (iv). Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,, (2023) 16 SCC 666, (v). Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 136, (vi). A.M. Mohan Vs. State representing by SHO and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, (vii). Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and Others VS. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621, (viii). Maneesha Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643 and (ix). Geddam Jhansi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263.
55. Since the proceedings of the two criminal cases mentioned in the Gang Chart have already been quashed, the basis of the proceedings under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 has vanished, therefore, irrespective of the fact that a writ petition is pending before this Court, the impugned proceedings arising out of the FIR under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 also cannot be maintained and are, thus, liable to be quashed.
56. In view of the discussion made above, the other two applications succeed and are liable to be allowed.
57. They are, accordingly, allowed.
58. The impugned charge sheet dated 03.02.2023 submitted in Case Crime No. 0992 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramandeep and Others), under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station--Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly, the Cognizance Taking Order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.-5/Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Bareilly in Sessions Case No. 872 of 2023 (State Vs. Ramandeep and Others)/Special Case No. 36 of 2023, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Izzat Nagar, District-Bareilly now pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.-5/Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Bareilly as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case leading to Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27297 of 2023 (Arvinder Singh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28106 of 2023 (Ramandeep and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) are, hereby, quashed.
59. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 03.09.2025/Vinay
