Aash Mohammad @ Chota And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of an FIR No. 438 of 2020, under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh

Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short “the Actâ€​), Police Station Roorkee, District Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

According to the FIR, the in-charge inspector got news that co-accused Muzamil had formed a gang. He was leader of that gang and members of

the gang would grab land; commit offences like murder, ‘Maar-Peet’ and would collectively threaten the people in general. List of cases

pending against the petitioners is given in the FIR. Against petitioner no.1, there are eight cases and against petitioner no.2 there are three cases. In

the writ petition, it is stated that the Act is not applicable in the State of Uttarakhand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the FIR, the information has not been completely disclosed on the basis of which, the FIR is

lodged. Reference has been made to Section 4 of the Act to argue that none of the categories as given under Section 4 (a) of the Act are attracted in

the instant case.

The Act has been enacted in order to make special provision for the prevention of, and for coping with, gangsters and anti-social activities and for

matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.

In Section 2 (a) (b) of the Act, the word “Gangâ€​ has been defined as hereunder:-

“2. Definitions.- In this Act,-

……………………………………………

(b) ""Gang"" means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or

otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other

person, indulge in anti-social activities, namely :

(i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or

………………………………………………

……………………………………………â€​

Gangster is defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act, which reads as hereunder:-

(c) ""gangster"" means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated

in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities;

According to the FIR, the petitioners have formed a gang. As per section 2(c) of the Act each individual number of that gang is a gangster. The

punishment for gangster is provided under Section 3 of the Act. Insofar as non-application of the Act in the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, nothing

has been shown on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, pursuant a government notification dated 288/XXXVI(1)(Ek)/2009-19/2000 dated 26.10.2009, once

on 28.10.2019, this High Court issued a notification under the Act appointing a Presiding Officer, in the Special Court at Haridwar by virtue of this

High Court’s notification, 198/UHC/Admin.A/2007. It shows that the provision of this Act are applicable in the State of Uttarakhand.

Undoubtedly, there have been cases pending against both the petitioners under Chapters of IPC as enumerated under Section 2(b) (i) of the Act. So

apparently, both the petitioners are gangsters, in accordance with the Act. Reference has been made to Section 4 of the Act. In fact, to make a

person gangster or to define a gang, this Section 4 of the Act has no application. What it says is that for the purpose of trial and punishment for

offences under the Act or connected offence, the Court may consider certain situations and those situations are given under Section 4 (a) of the Act.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the instant writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

The instant writ petition is dismissed.