Dismissed

Shrichand and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2021CRLP/4299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition filed by Shrichand and another sought quashing of an FIR registered under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. The challenge was based on the allegation that an FIR cannot be made out where paddy crops were sown and later illegally cut during revenue proceedings regarding public land encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the First Information Report dated 31.05.2021 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

Shrichand and another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4299 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shrichand And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Beenu Singh,K.C. Mishra,Prashant Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ambrish Chandra Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

The petitioners herein seek for quashing of the First Information Report dated 31.05.2021 registered as Case Crime No.138 of 2021 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act P.S-Paschim Sharira DistrictKaushambi.

¶7

Placing averments in the first information report dated 27.11.2020 it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no criminal offence can be made out from the bare reading of the first information report.

¶8

Proceedings under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 are in the nature of civil proceeding and no criminal case can be lodged on the allegations of encroachment over the public property.

¶9

It is then contended that from the perusal of the gang chart appended at page-'42' of the writ petition, it is evident that two criminal cases under Section 447 I.P.C and 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 as also the Case Crime no.441 of 2020 under Section 188/379 I.P.C read with Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, had been lodged against the petitioners which are the basis of booking the petitioners under Gangster Act.

¶10

It is further contended that in the proceedings before the Magistrate, it was found that paddy crop was sown by the petitioners herein and the appeal under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act is pending before the competent authority wherein status-quo order dated 28.12.2021 had been passed.

¶11

Considering the above, we may note the definition of "Gang" as provided in Clause-b of Section 2 of the U.P Gangsters Act and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986.

¶12

A perusal of the said definition indicates that sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Section 2 includes occupation or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law or setting-up false claims for title or possession with regard to the immovable property by any person, which has been included in the anti-social activities, by a group of persons, acting either singly or collectively so as to bring it within the meaning of the "Gang" in Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, 1986.

¶13

The allegations in the first information report are that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused had illegally encroached upon the public land recorded as 'Navin Parti' and 'Banjar' in the Revenue record, and despite a categorical direction of the competent authority, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006, they had cut away the paddy crop in an illegal manner.

¶14

Looking to the allegations in the first information report as also the definition of "Gang" provided in the Gangster Act, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶15

It cannot be said that no offence is made out from the perusal of the first information report within the meaning of Gangster Act, 1986.

¶16

No case as such is made out for interference.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.9.2021 Harshita

¶19

Digitally signed by SUNITA Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani AGARWAL Thakur Date: 2021.09.14 16:49:14 IST Date: 2021.09.14 16:49:41 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Shrichand and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrichand and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Priti Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bina Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirmala Singh Vs State of U.P. through principal secretary, Ministry of power

Sita Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Chaudhary Vs State of up