Hon’ble Uma Nath Singh, J.—Affidavit filed by State is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the materials on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, made a limited prayer that the impugned order taking cognizance under the U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Gangsters Act’) only on the basis of case crime No. 144 of 2007 registered under Section 307,323,506 and 427 IPC against the petitioners would not be sustainable in Law. It is contended that the FIR in question was lodged in respect of an incident which occurred when the complainant side came to take forcible possession of a disputed land. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in an appeal by one Maqbool Ahmad, father-in-law of petitioner No. 1 Nafees, relating to the land in question had remanded the matter for afresh consideration which was pending before the Consolidation Officer at the time of incident. According to the learned counsel, the occurrence in question cannot be said to be an act of disturbing the public order or indulging in anti-social activities. Moreover, the land was purchased by Maqbool Ahmad, brother of petitioner No. 2 mehmood and father-in-law of petitioner No. 1 Nafees. Thus, both the petitioners are in no manner connected with that land and the order taking cognizance under the provisions of the Gangsters Act in the instant case suffers from the non application of mind. If such proceedings are allowed to continue, that will amount to abuse of the process of law and Court.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel referred to the nature of offences registered vide the case Crime No. 144 of 2007 and supported the order taking cognizance under the Gangsters Act.

4. On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the records, it is noticeable that the impugned order dated 2.2.2008 was passed by the learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Faizabad, in case No. 51 of 2008 relating to case crime No. 144 of 2007 registered under Section 307,323,506 and 427 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Judge took cognizance also under the Gangsters Act on a charge-sheet being filed. The very genesis of the incident was a pending consolidation proceeding relating to an agricultural land purchased by Maqbool Ahmad, son of Gafoor. Maqbool Ahmad is real brother of the petitioner No. 2 and father-in-law of petitioner No. 1. It also appears that during the pendency of that proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, and the land being in possession of Maqbool Ahmad, complainant Mumtaz wanted to take its forcible possession which led to the occurrence as aforesaid. Complainant Mimtaz lodged a first information report on 13.4.2007 against the petitioners and Maqbool Ahmad, wherein he alleged that he owned an agricultural field in village Atra (Makraha Khurd) in which the Chari crop was sown. Maqbool Ahmad and Mehmood, sons of Gafoor, and also son in law of Maqbool Ahmad namely Nafees ploughed the field by a tractor. Idrees son of Gultam Ali prevented them from ploughing the field, therefore, they attacked him with country made pistol and Lathi. A bullet fired from country made pistol passed over the head of Idrees. Idress also suffered Lathi injuries at the hands of Nafees, son in law of Maqbool Ahmad and fell down on the ground. Maqbool Ahmad exhorted by shouting that Idrees be not spared. As a result, Mehmood, Maqbool Ahmad and his son in law Nafees jointly caused Lathi injuries to Idrees. Idrees in order to save his life raised alarms which attracted Akram and Latif etc., who arrived at the spot and saw the occurrence. Maqbool Ahmad, his son in law Nafees and Mehmood then ran away from the spot. During the causing of assaults when the mother of complainant came to the spot she was also caused injuries. Thus, the first information report was lodged by the complainant. However, in the first information report on the basis of informations received the offences were