# Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Maratha & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 515 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-07-20 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10919 of 2023 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Shiv Shanker Prasad - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-kumar-deepak-maratha-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50687 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Law - Constitution of Indian,1950 - Article - 226 - UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 2(b), 2(b)(iv) & 3 - Public Gambling Act, 1867 - Sections 3 & 4 - Petition - challenging the impugned FIR lodged under the Gangsters Act - based on the single case pending under section 3/4 P.G. Act, - wherein accused-petitioner was on bail - Definition of word "Gang" - court finds that, charge-sheet in base case against the petitioners had been filed on 29.04.2023 and the impugned FIR has been lodged against them on 30.06.2023 - Court do not find any illegality in manner in which the first information report had been lodged - Moreover, allegations in first information report, in considered opinion, contain ingredients of a cognizable offence - held, provisions of the Gangsters Act can be slapped against a person on the basis of a single case - hence writ petition, dismissed. (Para - 10, 11, 13) Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11) ## Text 8 All. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Maratha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 515 was bad in law and is therefore liable to be set-aside. It may be noted as a matter of precaution that the consequent upon setting-aside the judgment of the revisional court, the issue of enhancement of the maintenance amount as was claimed by the wife in Criminal Revision No.217 of 2004 opens up. As the matter is probably one of the oldest, hence the concerned court is directed to decide the same as per law within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this judgment. 26. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. ---------- (2023) 8 ILRA 515 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10919 of 2023 Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Maratha & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, Sri Manish Tiwari (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Criminal Law - Constitution of Indian,1950 - Article - 226 - UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 2(b), 2(b)(iv) & 3 - Public Gambling Act, 1867 - Sections 3 & 4 - Petition - challenging the impugned FIR lodged under the Gangsters Act - based on the single case pending under section 3/4 P.G. Act, - wherein accused-petitioner was on bail - Definition of word "Gang" - court finds that, charge-sheet in base case against the petitioners had been filed on 29.04.2023 and the impugned FIR has been lodged against them on 30.06.2023 - Court do not find any illegality in manner in which the first information report had been lodged - Moreover, allegations in first information report, in considered opinion, contain ingredients of a cognizable offence - held, provisions of the Gangsters Act can be slapped against a person on the basis of a single case - hence writ petition, dismissed. (Para - 10, 11, 13) Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11) (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwari, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to the first information report dated 30.6.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No. 441 of 2023 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Kasganj, DistrictKasgang. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offences alleged in the first information report do not fall within the category of offences specified in the Act of 1986. In any case, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of the word 'gang' as occurring in Section 2(b) of the Act. Another ground taken in the writ petition is that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act are mala fide. No cognizable offence is 516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES disclosed from the allegations made in the first information report. 4. The petitioners in the writ petition are Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Maratha and Monu Maheshwari @ Manoj Kumar. The provisions of the Gangsters Act have been imposed against them on the basis of a single case being Case Crime No. 256 of 2023 under Sections 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act wherein the petitioners are stated to be on bail. 5. The word "gang" is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act which reads as follows:- "2(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 (ii) distilling or manufacturing or .storing or transporting or importing or exporting or selling or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or narcotics or cultivating any plant, in contravention of any of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910), or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985), or any other law for the time being in force, or (iii) occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting-up false claims for title or possession of immovable property whether in himself or any other person, or (iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from discharging his lawful duties, or (v) offences punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956), or (vi) offences punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act No. 3 of 1867), or (vii) preventing any person from offering bids in auction lawfully conducted, or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf of any Government department, local body or public or private undertaking, for any lease or rights or supply of goods or work to be done, or (viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any person of his lawful business, profession, trade or employment or any other lawful activity connected therewith, or (ix) offences punishable under Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or in preventing or obstructing any public election being lawfully held, by physically preventing the voter from exercising his electoral rights, or (x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communal harmony, or (xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or (xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or owners or occupiers of public or private undertakings or factories and causing mischief in respect of their properties, or (xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person to go to foreign countries on false representation that any 8 All. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Maratha & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 517 employment, trade or profession shall be provided to him in such foreign country, or (xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with intent to extort ransom, or (xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any aircraft or public transport vehicle from following its scheduled course; [(xvi) offences punishable under the Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976; (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; (xviii) human trafficking for purposes of commercial exploitation, bonded labour, child labour, sexual exploitation, organ removing and trafficking, beggary and the like activities. (xix) offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1966: (xx) printing, transporting and circulating of fake Indian currency notes; (xxi) involving in production, sale and distribution of spurious drugs; (xxii) involving in manufacture, sale and transportation of arms and ammunition in contravention of Sections 5, 7 and 12 of the Arms Act, 1959; (xxiii) felling or killing for economic gains, smuggling of products in contravention of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; (xxiv) offences punishable under the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979; (xvv) indulging in crimes that impact security of State, public order and even tempo of life." 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a person singly or collectively can constitute a gang only if (i) by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise tries to gain any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. The emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioners is on the words "violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation or coercion". 7. In our considered opinion, bare reading of the provision itself would show that violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation or coercion are not the only conditions specified under Section 2(b) of the Act. What is important and material at least for the case at hand, is the word "otherwise". The word "otherwise" in our opinion means that the words in Section 2(b) occurring before it namely violence, or its threat, intimidation & coercion are not exhaustive but only indicative or illustrative. The word "otherwise" would include within its ambit any act which disturbs public order or is aimed at acquiring temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage and such act is anti-social. Thus, in view of the word "otherwise" a person who disturbs public order or gains undue temporal, pecuniary or material advantage for himself by indulging any anti-social activities would fall within the scope of the word "gang" occurring in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. 8. Section 2(b)(vi) of Gangsters Act provides that an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 also falls within the definition of the word "gang". It is not in dispute that the base case against the petitioners is one under Section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act. 518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 9. Under the circumstances, therefore, the submission, that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of the word "gang" as occurring in Section 2(b) of the Act, cannot be accepted. 10. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of the Gangsters Act can be slapped against a person on the basis of a single case. 11. The charge-sheet in the base case against the petitioners had been filed on 29.04.2023 and the impugned FIR has been lodged against them on 30.06.2023. 12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the manner in which the first information report had been lodged. Moreover, the allegations in the first information report, in our considered opinion, contain the ingredients of a cognizable offence. 13. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned first information report. The writ petition is without merit and is dismissed. ---------- (2023) 8 ILRA 518 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11966 of 2023 Abhishek Kukreti & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Mahipal Singh, Sri Kripa Shankar Singh (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Criminal Law - Constitution of Indian,1950 - Article 48(a) & 226, - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 173 & 190(1)(d) - Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 21, 22, 23(A)(1) & 23(A)(2) - Mines And Minerals Development And Regulation Rules,1957 - Rule 18 & 53 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 378, 379, 411 & 414 - Petition - challenging the impugned proceedings of seizing of the vehicles - as well as for quashing of the FIR - Punishment for theft - Dishonestly receiving stolen property - Court finds that, everyday newspapers are flooded with the news of illegal mining from every corners of the country, raiding parties / officials / even officers are attached and due to illegal mining - there can be no dispute about the fact that the St. Exchequers must be losing huge revenue apart from damage to the public property as well - held, (i) petitioner are the owners of the vehicles which were found to be involved in the present case, therefore a cognizable offence is made out, and (ii) it is high time for Government concern to take a call on larger issue and do needful as Hon'ble Apex Court has left in to wisdom of legislature to do needful and concerned St. to perform its public duty/obligation being an elected Government - accordingly, Writ petition, dismissed. (Para - 16, 17, 18) Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: 1. Jayant Vs St. of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 670, 2. St. (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J. & Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)