# Guddu @ Parvej v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 760 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2015-09-15 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Pramod Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/guddu-parvej-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43387 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986-Ss. 2(b)(iv), 3-Scheduled offences-Gambling Act offences- Invocation of Gangsters Act on basis of a single case - Permissibility. Held, offences under Public Gambling Act fall within the Schedule read with S. 2(b)(iv) of the 1986 ActHence, even a single offence under the Gambling Act may constitute the foundation for invoking the Gangsters Act- Absence of multiple or repetitive offences does not bar application of the Act. (para7) Criminal Law - Gangsters Act - When FIR under the Act is not liable to be quashed - Requirement of "multiple acts" - Interpretation of "singular includes plural" -argument that the Act cannot be invoked unless multiple similar offences exist, rejected-Following Rinku @ Hukku v. State of U.P., singular includes plural, and therefore even one scheduled offence may suffice to form "activity" of a gangster.(Para 7) Invoking Gangsters Act-on basis of a Gambling Act case -legally sustainable - No ground for interference with FIR under S. 3 of the Act. Petition dismissed with liberty to apply for bail.(Para 4) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Article 226 of Constitution of India- Writ jurisdiction - Quashing of FIR - When not permissible-Where FIR discloses commission of a scheduled offence and invocation of special statute is supported by binding precedent- Court will not quash FIR at pre-investigation stage- Proper remedy for accused is to seek bail, not quashing. Precedents - Coordinate Bench decisions - Later Bench laying down correct law to prevail - Interim orders not binding upon the court. (Para5,6) Writ petition dismissed. List of Cases cited: Vijay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. andothers, 2010(71) ACC 864 4 All. Guddu @ Parvej Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 761 Satyavir and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others Rinku @ Hukkuu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (4) ACC 614 ## Text 760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 22130 Of 2015 Guddu @ Parvej ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Umesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986-Ss. 2(b)(iv), 3-Scheduled offences-Gambling Act offences- Invocation of Gangsters Act on basis of a single case - Permissibility. Held, offences under Public Gambling Act fall within the Schedule read with S. 2(b)(iv) of the 1986 ActHence, even a single offence under the Gambling Act may constitute the foundation for invoking the Gangsters Act- Absence of multiple or repetitive offences does not bar application of the Act. (para7) Criminal Law - Gangsters Act - When FIR under the Act is not liable to be quashed - Requirement of "multiple acts" - Interpretation of "singular includes plural" -argument that the Act cannot be invoked unless multiple similar offences exist, rejected-Following Rinku @ Hukku v. State of U.P., singular includes plural, and therefore even one scheduled offence may suffice to form "activity" of a gangster.(Para 7) Invoking Gangsters Act-on basis of a Gambling Act case -legally sustainable - No ground for interference with FIR under S. 3 of the Act. Petition dismissed with liberty to apply for bail.(Para 4) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Article 226 of Constitution of India- Writ jurisdiction - Quashing of FIR - When not permissible-Where FIR discloses commission of a scheduled offence and invocation of special statute is supported by binding precedent- Court will not quash FIR at pre-investigation stage- Proper remedy for accused is to seek bail, not quashing. Precedents - Coordinate Bench decisions - Later Bench laying down correct law to prevail - Interim orders not binding upon the court. (Para5,6) Writ petition dismissed. List of Cases cited: Vijay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. andothers, 2010(71) ACC 864 4 All. Guddu @ Parvej Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 761 Satyavir and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others Rinku @ Hukkuu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (4) ACC 614 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. & Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA. 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case under the Gambling Act and has also been booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.He prays for quashing of the impugned FIR for the offence under the Gangster Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a co-accused in the very case had approached this Court and filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 19398 of 2015 where an interim protection has been granted by a division Bench on 11.8.2015. A copy of the said order in a pending petition is annexed as annexure 3 to the petition and is extracted hereunder: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in case crime no. 263 of 2015 under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Nawabganj, district Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been booked under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention)Act,1986, on account of his involvement in only one case namely Case Crime No. 115 of 2015 under section 3/4 of the Public Gambling Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, and there being no allegation in the FIR relating to any act or omission on the part of the petitioner covered by the definition of gang or gangster as has been defined in the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this court reported in 2010(71) ACC 864, Vijay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, prima facie, appears to have some substance. The matter requires consideration after receiving response. Learned A.G.A has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. He prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. 762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Issue notice to opposite party no. 3, who may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this matter immediately after expiry of six weeks before the appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C, whichever is later, the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to impugned FIR dated 2015 registered as Case Crime no. 263 of 2015 under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Nawabganj, district Kanpur Nagar." 4. He has then invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010(71) ACC 864 to substantiate his submissions. The contention in short appears to be that the FIR in the Gangster Act itself was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the offence of gambling even though not repeated several times could not be made subject matter for prosecuting the petitioner under the 1986 Act. 5. On the other hand Sri Ali Murtaza, learned AGA has invited the attention of the judgment of another division Bench dated 18.04.2015 in the case of Satyavir and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 8724 of 2015 to contend that the judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Pathak (Supra) does not notice the correct status of the Gambling Act as contained in the schedule of the offences as defined under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He therefore submits that in view of the said final division Bench judgment dated 18.04.2015, which has also considered the earlier division Bench judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Pathak (Supra), the interim order extracted herinabove in the case of co-accused should not be treated as a binding precedent or as an order of parity for the benefit of the petitioner. 6. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that thedivision Bench judgment in the case of Satyavir (Supra) is a finaljudgment, which also takes into consideration the provisions of Section3 of the Gambling Act referred to as one of the scheduled offences under Section 2 (b)(iv) of the Gangsters Act. 7. The said division Bench judgment therefore is binding on us as it is of a cordinate Bench and it also reflects the correct position of law. The judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Pathak (Supra) even though of a previous coordinate division Bench does not appear to have correctly noticed the abovmentioned provisions, particularly Section 2(b)(iv) of the Gangsters Act, 1986, nor does the same appear to have been pointed out or noticed in the interim order dated 11.08.2015. Satyavir's judgment (Supra) is also a complete answer to the argument of the learned counsel on the issue of only one case in the gang chart or absence of repetition of the same offence, where it has been pointed out that singular includes plural relying on another division Bench decision in the case 4 All. Shiv Charan Lal Vs District Inspector of Schools Etawah & Anr. 763 of Rinku @ Hukkuu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (4) ACC 614. Consequently, the interim order dated 11.08.2015 cannot be adhered to in view of the aforesaid binding precedent placed before us. 8. The petitioner therefore cannot get any benefit of the said interim order relied upon and as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned FIR or quash the same. It is open to the petitioner to seek his remedy by way of bail. 9. Rejected with the said observations. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J. Writ A No.- 25154 Of 1999 Shiv Charan Lal ...Petitioner Versus District Inspector of Schools Etawah & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Ramesh Upadhyaya, Ram Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C Service law - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Aided recognised institution - Lecturer promoted from L.T. Grade - Petitioner, already in Trained Graduate Selection Grade in pay scale of Rs. 1640‐2765-- drawing pay equal to Lecturer's scale at time of promotion - Government Order dated 06.11.1989 providing that on promotion to a higher post, where duties of higher post are discharged, one additional increment is to be granted in the pay scale of the higher post - District Inspector of Schools, Etawah initially granting one increment and fixing pay at Rs. 2615 vide order dated 11.09.1996-- later cancelling said increment at the time of revision of pay under Pay Committee, 1998 and Government Order dated 10.07.1998, by order dated 06.03.1999. Increment - Nature of - Increment is an incidence of employment - Once granted in accordance with governing Government Orders, it cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily - Principle laid down in State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh Kanwar followed. Held, clarificatory Government Order dated 16.02.1990 makes it clear that though Rule 22‐B of Financial Handbook Vol. II Part II‐IV is not directly applicable to teachers--its benefit stands extended through Government Order dated 06.11.1989--Government Order dated 02.02.1995 only amends Government Order dated 04.10.1989 and does not curtail or modify G.O. dated 06.11.1989; increment validly granted in terms of G.O. dated 06.11.1989 could not be withdrawn merely with reference to G.O. dated 02.02.1995.