JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vishal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing for the State-opposite parties.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 08.07.2020 passed in Case No. 07 of 2020 (State vs. Amit Sharma) under Section 14 (1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the Act, 1986, by the Police Commissioner, Gautam Buddha Nagar, with all of its consequential effects and a further prayer to stay the proceedings of Case No. 7/2020 (State vs. Amit Sharma) under Section 14 (1) of the Act, 1986 by the Police Commissioner, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate-I at the very outset raises an objection with regard to the maintainability of the present application on the ground that the order of which quashment is sought has been passed under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act which is in the nature of an administrative order and as such no proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Code, being pending, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.

4. Counsel for the applicant has referred to the factual aspects of the case in order to press for the relief for quashing of the order dated 5.7.2020, passed by the Police Commissioner and the consequential proceedings initiated under the Act, 1986.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the statutory provisions contained under the Act, 1986, would be required to be adverted to.

6. The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 1986, was promulgated to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with gangsters and antisocial activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Ordinance was replaced by Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities) Act, 1986 [U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986], passed by the State Legislature with the same objective.

7. The provisions under the Act, 1986 relating to attachment of property and consequential proceedings, which are relevant for the purpose of controversy in the present case, are being extracted below :

“14. Attachment of property. (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court.

(2) The provisions of the Code shall, mutatis mutandis apply to every such attachment.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code the District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any property attached under sub-section (1) and the Administrator shall have all the powers to administer such property in the best interest thereof.

(4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property.

15. Release of property. (1) Where any property is attached under Section 14, the claimant thereof may, within three months from the date of knowledge of such attachment, make a representation to the District Magistrate showing the circumstances in and the sources by which such property was acquired by him.

(2) If the District Magistrate is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made under sub-section (1) he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and thereupon such property shall be made over to the claimant.

16. Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by Court. (1) Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act.

(2) Where the Distric