Point of Law : Even a single case, if fulfils the category of offences given under Section 2(b) (i) to (xv) of Act and is being committed by gang defined under Section 2 (b) or gangster defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act may be basis for registration of case crime number for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

1. We have heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Prashant Rai and Ms. Vishakha Pande, appearing for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri S.A. Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for all the respondents.

2. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by Anil Saha with a prayer for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 26.06.2021 registered as Case Crime No.0558 of 2021 under Sections 2 and 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

3. It appears that the petitioner is a qualified architect and business man. He has constructed several residential complexes in Gautam Budh Nagar and New Delhi. A company was formed in the name of 'Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited' (in short, the Company), which was duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was not associated with the said company as Director, Promoter, Signatory, Shareholder or in any other capacity. The said company decided to start a business of E-bikes/Taxi Bikes under a "BIKEBOT" scheme in August 2017 and under this Scheme, anybody could invest Rs.62,100/-and in lieu thereof, he would receive monthly profit of Rs.4,590/-per month for a period of 12 months and Rs.5,175/-per month for reimbursement/repayment of the invested amount. Thus, the company was required to pay Rs.9,765/-per month against an investment of Rs.62,100/-. The aforesaid amount was to be paid monthly for a period of 12 months. The investor was also required to enter into written agreements with the Company in this regard. More than 2,43,000 persons invested under the said Scheme. Consequently, the company raised a sum of Rs.2,500/-crores under the Bike Bot Scheme. From the money so raised, 10,000/-Bikes, 129 Luxury Cars like Fortuner, Mercedes, Jaquar etc. and 700 Cars of middle segment were purchased and the same are stated to be running as taxis in various cities. The Company suffered some losses, as a result whereof, rumours were spread that its entire business had collapsed and the Company was not in a position to refund the money to the investors, according to the agreement entered into between them. Subsequently, on account of rumours and certain fake and malicious newspaper reports, more than 70 FIRs were lodged in District Gautam Budh Nagar by the investors of the Scheme. On the basis of the FIRs, the property of the Company has been seized as also the Bank Accounts of the Company and its Directors. It also appears that one FIR was registered as Case Crime No.510 of 2019 at P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar under Sections 420, 409, 201, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC on 19.5.2019. The petitioner was not named in the said FIR but he was arrested in the case on 01.3.2021 on the allegation that certain amount had been transferred to the account of the petitioner by the said Company. The petitioner approached this Court and preferred Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19568 of 2021 (Anil Saha vs. State of UP) in which learned A.G.A. was directed to file response in the matter. In the meanwhile, impugned FIR has been lodged.

4. In this backdrop, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR dated 19.5.2019 registered as Case Crime No.510 of 2019. The petitioner is neither a Director, Promoter, Signatory or Shareholder of the company nor a beneficiary of the 'Bike Bot Scheme' in any way floated by the said Company. However, the Investigating Officer had given an application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. for remand on 01.3.2021, wherein, it was indicated that the petitioner, who is Director of Saha Infratech Private Ltd., was an accused in view of the fact that the company and its sister con