Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, DONADI RAMESH, JJ.
Mohammad Anees – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP And 3 Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.984 of 2024
Decided on : 23-04-2024
GANGSTER ACT - UTTAR PRADESH GANGSTERS AND ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1986 - Sections 2, 3; Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, particularly Sections 2 and 3, which define the offenses and the criteria for classifying individuals as gangsters. The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, particularly regarding the preparation and approval of gang charts. The court found that the petitioner’s arguments regarding procedural lapses were insufficient to quash the FIR, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the First Information Report (FIR) dated 22.05.2023, registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, claiming that he was not named in the base FIR and that the FIR was based on a concocted story. The petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition that was dismissed, and he sought to quash the FIR and prevent his arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR constituted a cognizable offense and that the petitioner had not provided sufficient grounds to distinguish his case from the earlier dismissed petition. The court noted that the procedural requirements of the Gangster Act were not met, but this did not warrant quashing the FIR. The court concluded that the petition was an attempt to re-litigate the same issues and was thus an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, should be quashed based on alleged procedural violations and whether the petitioner could file a second writ petition after a previous dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a second writ petition challenging the same FIR without permission from the Supreme Court is not maintainable. The court reiterated that the grounds for the second petition were available during the first petition and that the procedural lapses cited did not invalidate the FIR.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs. 20,000, stating that the petitioner was attempting to circumvent the previous dismissal and engage in bench hunting.
JUDGMENT :
Delivered by Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
1. Heard Sri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Investigation Officer not to arrest petitioner pursuant to impugned first information report.”
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Admittedly, earlier the petitioner approached this Court challenging the same First Information Reeport dated 22.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 185 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 by filing a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of 2023 (Mohammad Anees vs. State of UP and others), which was dismissed on 13.7.2023. The said order is quoted as under:
2. Present petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. dated 22.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 185 of 2023 under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the base FIR the petitioner was not named and he was granted bail and only two cases have been mentioned in the gangster chart against the petitioner.
4. Learned A.G.A. submits that the petitioner has been chargesheeted in the base FIR and there are two cases and provisions of Gangster Act can be imposed on the basis of solitary case, which issue has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh decided on 26 April, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 569570 of 2022.
5. On perusal of the record and the first information report, we find that cognizable offence is made out. We further find that Criminal Writ Petition No. 10538 of 2023 filed by the co-accused has already been dismissed vide order dated 11.7.2023.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to take a different view in the matter.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied)
4. Against the aforesaid order dated 13.7.2024, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 45613 of 2023 (Mohammed Anees vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), which, after arguing for some time, was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.12.2023, and after permission having been granted, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. It was further pointed out that if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. The said order dated 4.12.2023 passed in the said SLP is quoted as under:
Permission granted.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reflects that the matter was argued for some time before the Hon’ble Apex court and it is only thereafter the Special Leave Petition was got dismissed as withdrawn. It is clear that no liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the first information report impugned herein was given
A second writ petition challenging the same FIR is not maintainable without permission from the Supreme Court, and procedural lapses in the preparation of gang charts do not automatically invalidate ....
Point of law: While holding the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Gangster Act, the Court was of the view that under this Act, a person can be accused of an offence only if he ....
The preparation and approval of a gang chart under the Gangster Act must involve substantive findings that demonstrate the gang's threat to public order, or it results in an empty formality negating ....
Criminal Law - FIR - Lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case, is valid and permissible single case, is valid and permissible - In a petition under Article 226 of the Const....
The court established that competent authorities must exercise independent judgment and provide specific details in FIRs under the Gangsters Act to prevent misuse of stringent legal provisions.
An FIR cannot be quashed as a second FIR if it follows an initial report of death, and the court cannot intervene post cognizance without pending matters.
The court ruled that procedural violations in preparing the gang-chart rendered the F.I.R. unsustainable, and that mentioning Section 3 suffices for F.I.R. registration without detailing offences und....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
