Uttarakhand High Court
Ravindra Pokhriyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1427 of 2023
Ravindra Pokhriyal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder
for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0224 of
2023, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 ("the Act"), Police
Station Raiwala, District Dehradun, with related reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the co-accused Satender
Pokhriyal has formed a gang of which petitioner is a member.
They forged documents; cheat people by executing forged sale
deeds; they do not return money; they are gaining undue
pecuniary advantages; a sense of fear has been spread in the
society; no person from the society is ready to speak against
them or depose against them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
the cases, based on which the instant matter has been
lodged, are not given in the FIR. There are three cases lodged
against the petitioner, but in none of them there is any
element of threat, fear, intimidation or violence. They are
merely property related matters, and in all those matters, writ
petitions are already pending in this Court.
5. It is an offence under the Act, which is quite
distinct than the offences, based on which the offence under
the Act is registered.
6. Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment for
a gangster. The word gangster is defined under Section 2(c) of
the Act, which reads as follows:-
"3. (c) "gangster" means a member or leader or
organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets
or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause
(b), whether before or after the commission of such
activities or harbours any person who has indulged in
such activities;"
7. In order to attract the definition of gangster, it
has to be established that a person, who is termed as
gangster, has been a member of a gang. The word "gang" is
defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, which means a group of
persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence,
or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or
otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-
social activities, as specified under Section 2(b)(i) to 2(b)(xv) of
the Act.
8. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not
implicated in any case, which is not specified under Section
2(b)(i) to 2(b)(xv) of the Act. The FIR records that the petitioner
has spread threat. No person is ready and willing to depose
against him. What is its truthfulness or credibility of the
contents of the FIR, it would fall for scrutiny during
investigation or the trial, as the case may be. This Court
cannot adjudicate or examine those issues in this writ
petition, at this stage.
9. The FIR definitely discloses commission of
offences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no
reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
13.10.2023
Ravi Bisht
