The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition challenging the first information report dated 30.6.2023 giving rise to Case under Section 2/3 of the U.P Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Kasganj, District-Kasganj.

The Division Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Maratha and Another.

The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the offences alleged in the first information report do not fall within the category of offences specified in the Act of 1986.

In any case, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of the word ‘gang’ as occurring in Section 2(b) of the Act. Another ground taken in the writ petition is that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act are mala fide. No cognizable offence is disclosed from the allegations made in the first information report.

The petitioners in the writ petition are Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Maratha and Monu Maheshwari @ Manoj Kumar. The provisions of the Gangsters Act have been imposed against them on the basis of a single case being Case under Sections 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act wherein the petitioners are stated to be on bail.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that a person singly or collectively can constitute a gang only if (i) by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise tries to gain any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. The emphasis of the counsel for the petitioners is on the words “violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation or coercion”.

The Court held that, bare reading of the provision itself shows 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.

Section 2(b)(vi) of Gangsters Act provides that an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 also falls within the definition of the word “gang”. It is not in dispute that the base case against the petitioners is one under Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act.

“Under the circumstances, therefore, the submission that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of the word “gang” as occurring in Section 2(b) of the Act, cannot be accepted.

It is also not in dispute that the provisions of the Gangsters Act can be slapped against a person on the basis of a single case.

The charge-sheet in the base case against the petitioners had been filed on 29.04.2023 and the impugned FIR has been lodged against them on 30.06.2023.

Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the manner in which the first information report had been lodged. Moreover, the allegations in the first information report, in our considered opinion, contain the ingredients of a cognizable offence.

In view of the foregoing, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned first information report”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.

The Allahabad High Court will hear on June 14 a case where a petition seeking cancellation of an FIR which was filed and withdrawn from the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court be filed in the Principal Bench at Prayagraj without seeking permission for it.

The Division Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Rameshwar Singh Yadav and Another.

The petitioners approached the Lucknow Bench seeking the following reliefs:

“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Court may graciously be pleased to-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no 1 to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No.235 of 2022, under Section 2 and 3 U.P Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 to CBCID, Uttar Pradesh or to any other independent investigating agency as the Court deems, just and proper in the interest of justice.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 18.04.2022 at Case under Section 2 and 3 UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 lodged in Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah as contained in Annexure No 1 to the writ petition.

(iii) to pass any other suitable order or direction which is deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Allow the writ petition with costs.”

The Court noted,

Eventually, at the instance of the petitioners herein, relief no 2 in so far as it pertains to the challenge made to the FIR dated 18.4.2022, case under section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 lodged at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah was withdrawn while deleting the prayer therein and seeking liberty to seek legal remedy as admissible to the petitioners.

Essentially, the argument of Additional Advocate General appears for the State is at the first instance that once the petitioner herein has got deleted the relief in so far as it pertains to challenging the FIR coupled with the fact that while withdrawing the said relief, the petitioner herein has further sought liberty to seek legal remedies as available under law, then the writ petition at the behest of the petitioners herein is not maintainable as even otherwise in absence of any liberty so granted by the Lucknow Bench of the Court to approach the Court while filing the writ petition, the petition is not maintainable and secondly, two simultaneous proceedings, one at Lucknow Bench and second at Allahabad before the Court is not maintainable.

“Goyal has sought to rely upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Court dated 22.4.2019 in Writ – C No – 12468 of 2019 (Dheer Singh and Another Versus State of U.P and 3 Others) in order to buttress his submission.

Confronted with the said situation, Ashok Mehta, senior counsel for the petitioner, has sought short indulgence to address the Court on both the issues. On the request of Mehta, include the case in the list of fresh matters on 14.6.2022,” the order reads.