Point of Law: Indulge in anti-social activities - Disturbing public order - Existence of two criminal cases against petitioner is not in dispute and no ground exists for quashing impugned FIR.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report dated 07.11.2020 giving rise to Case Crime No.728 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra.

3. The order dated 04.11.2020, passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate, Sonebhadra granting approval to the Gang Chart, Annexure-5 to the writ petition is also sought to be quashed.

4. We have heard Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

5. We have also heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, who had offered to assisted the Court in the instant matter.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first information report has been lodged on the basis of two criminal cases registered against the petitioner; First, being Case Crime No.387 of 2020 under Sections 307, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra. The first information report in this case, which is a cross case was lodged on 24.05.2020, the other case in this regard being case Crime No.386 of 2020. These cases arose from a private dispute regarding an electricity connection and the petitioner was one of the injured in the cross case.

7. The second case on the basis whereof, the impugned first information report has been registered, in Case Crime No.543 of 2020 under Sections 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra. This first information report in this regard was lodged on 17.08.2020. As regards this case, the submission is that the incident took place on account of the private property dispute. Admittedly, there is enmity between the parties and it is a case of no injury.

8. Counsel for the petitioner has also reiterated that he has been granted bail in both the criminal cases lodged against him.

9. On the basis of the aforementioned, it is submitted that the facts alleged in the first information report do not make out any violence, threat or show of violence, intimidation, coercion etc. which would amount to disturbing public order. No temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage having been procured by the petitioner, is alleged in the criminal cases lodged against him. Therefore, the requirements of Section 2(b) & 2(b) (viii) of the Act are not made out.

10. Sub-section (viii) referred to by counsel for the petitioner reads as follows

"Preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any person of his lawful business, profession, trade or employment or any other lawful business, profession, trade or employment or any other lawful activity connected therewith, or".

11. It is next contended that recovery of a pistol and empty cartridges is from the co-accused in Case Crime No.386 of 2020, which was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Arti Patel. From the allegations made in the FIR, it appears that the petitioner was intervening in a dispute between the first informant and the other accused, pertaining to an electricity connection.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the findings returned in the order granting bail to him in Case Crime No.387 of 2020 to canvas that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

13. He has further submitted that the impugned FIR under the Gangsters Act is a case of false implication. In any case, the material satisfaction, allegedly recorded by the District Magistrate, while approving the Gang Chart is, without any basis.

14. Elaborating on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate has contended that for invocation of the provisions of the Act.

15. Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines a Gang, is crucial.

16. He has submitted that there has to be v