By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR dated 15.10.2010 registered as case crime No. 2853 of 2010, under Sections 2/3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short referred to as the “Gangsters Act”) at police station Kotwali City, District Hardoi. Further prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in respect of an incident dated 11.10.2010, an FIR was lodged by the complainant Shiv Ratan Singh, which was registered as case crime No. 2851 of 2010, under Section 171 Cha, 147, 353, 504 IPC and 136 (2) of Representation of People Act at PS Kotwali City, district Hardoi. According to the petitioners, this FIR was registered against unknown persons but the petitioners were falsely implicated by the police, which would be evident from the fact that in the said FIR, the complainant has alleged that when he was preparing necessary papers pertaining to election, at about 6 p.m., seven unknown persons came and started abusive language. They tried to snatch the ballot box but the Presiding Officer locked the door from inside. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners were arrested on 13.10.2010 and were granted bail by the competent Court on 14.10.2010. It has also been pointed out that there is no question of recovery of articles at the instance of the petitioners.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that after being enlarged on bail by the competent Court, the police registered a false impugned FIR under the provisions of the Gangsters Act. He has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and law abiding citizens. They have no criminal antecedents except the aforesaid case registered as case crime No. 2851 of 2010. Petitioner No. 1 is a farmer and is engaged in agriculture work in the village, whereas petitioner No. 2 Awanish Kumar is a young boy and is a student of B.A. Part-I.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the gang chart has been approved by the District Magistrate, Hardoi mechanically and without applying its independent mind. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioners are maintaining a gang and are involved in criminal activities. Furthermore, the leader of the gang and its members in order to have economic/physical gain are engaged in committing crimes punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code.

6. It has been vehemently argued that no offence from the perusal of the FIR under the provisions of the Gangsters Act is made out against the petitioners. Furthermore, from the gang chart itself, which is the basis of invoking the provisions of Gangsters Act, the four accused persons (including the petitioners) have been shown to be involved only in case crime No. 2853 of 2010.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that from perusal of the FIR, commission of cognizable offence under the provisions of Gangsters Act is made and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In order to substantiate his arguments, State Counsel has drawn our attention towards the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, which is a definition clause and submitted that the activities of the petitioners fall within the ambit of the definition and as such the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

8. However, during the course of arguments, when he was confronted with the question as to how, he would substantiate that the petitioners are habitual offenders and are involved in committing crimes punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code, the State Counsel fairly conceded that there is no such evidence. In the FIR it has been indicated that Abhimanyu Singh has formed a gang and the petitioners and other accused persons are members of the said