Court dismissed writ petitions seeking quashing of FIRs under the U.P. Gangsters Act. Held that a single case is sufficient for prosecution under the Act and petitioners failed to prove any violation of the Act or Rules.
Petitions dismissed; impugned FIRs not quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235809-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17913 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gulzar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Connected with
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17769 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mujahid Raja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
the Gangsters Act). Attention was drawn to a judgment of this Court dated 2.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18729 of 2023 (Asim @ Hassim vs. State of U.P. and others) to contend that after considering the definition of 'gang' as provided under Section 2(b), 2(c) and the penalty clause provided under Section 3 of the Gangsters Act proceeding of the Gangsters Act was quashed. It is next submitted that as the necessary details have not been mentioned in the impugned first information report, learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the details / facts given in the impugned first information report are different from the base first information report, therefore, the impugned FIR is vague and the same is liable to be quashed.
and the word 'transport' is clearly mentioned in Section 2(b) (xvii) of the Gangsters Act, which provides as under:-
"2(b). .....
(xvii) illegally transporting and/or smuggling of cattle and indulging in acts in contravention of the provisions in the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960;"
bearing on facts-circumstances of the instant case; the petitioners' case are at different footing and facts have not been considered, whereas in the instant case on perusal of impugned FIR, the ingredients of congizable offence are made out and therefore, would not be applicable.
Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Lalit Shukla
Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act violates provisions due to lack of details in the base FIR compared to the base FIR.
Whether the Gangsters Act can be invoked based on a single criminal case against the accused person.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asim @ Hassim vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶13
Asim @ Hassim vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18729 of 2023)
Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of Uttar PradeshFollowed¶11
Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514 · Who else cites this
Gulzar vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶10
Gulzar vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19354 of 2022)
Usman and 2 others vs. State of UP and 2 othersReferred¶12
Usman and 2 others vs. State of UP and 2 others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10708 of 2023)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gulzar
Mujahid Raja
State Of U.P.
4 Others
2 Others
Vivek Kumar Birla
Vinod Diwakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
