# Master @ Ramzan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 427 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-12-09 - **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 22007 of 2020 - **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi, Mrs. Saroj Yadav - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/master-ramzan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45605 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) - G.O. Dt. 2.1.2004 - Circular 428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Dt. 24.10.2003 - provides - only those criminal cases shall be included in the gang chart in which the police has prepared the chargesheet and the same has been filed before the court concerned (Para 11) In the gang chart, three criminal cases shown against petitioner - In one case petitioner was granted bail whereas in two other cases police not filed any chargesheet in the concern court - gang chart prepared on the wrong information - F.I.R. & Gang Chart quashed Writ Petition allowed. (E-5) ## Text 12 All. Master @ Ramzan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 427 uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers." 12. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others. 4 In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert 4 committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case. 13. 13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel." 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opinion of the subject experts has not been provided to the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable in view of expressed provision made in the Information Bulletin (NEET) (UG) 2020 in clause 15 (2)(d) which provides that "No individual candidate will be informed about the acceptance / nonacceptance of his / her challenge". Otherwise also if it is accepted the process of selection may take very long time. 19. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the subject experts have examined the objections of the petitioner and opined that the proposed answers are the correct answers and the final Answer Key has been issued accordingly, this Court can not examine the correctness of the answers, or framing of questions. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit. 20. It accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------- (2020)12ILR A427 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J. Misc. Bench No. 22007 of 2020 Master @ Ramzan & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Asim Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) - G.O. Dt. 2.1.2004 - Circular 428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Dt. 24.10.2003 - provides - only those criminal cases shall be included in the gang chart in which the police has prepared the chargesheet and the same has been filed before the court concerned (Para 11) In the gang chart, three criminal cases shown against petitioner - In one case petitioner was granted bail whereas in two other cases police not filed any chargesheet in the concern court - gang chart prepared on the wrong information - F.I.R. & Gang Chart quashed Writ Petition allowed. (E-5) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. & Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) ( By Oral order ) 1. Heard Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shachindra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned F.I.R. No.0430 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short 'Gangsters Act'') registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda. 3. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the Gang Chart prepared under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda and commanding the opposite parties to drop the proceedings under Section 3(1) of Gangsters Act registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, with all consequential reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without proper application of mind. 5. It is also submitted that in the gang chart, three criminal cases have been shown against petitioner no.2. In case bearing Case Crime No.156/2019, he has been granted bail whereas so far Case Crime No.312 of 2019 and Case Crime No.406 of 2020 are concerned, the police has not yet filed any chargesheet in the concerning court. 6. Similarly, in the gang chart, two criminal cases have been shown against petitioner no.1. In one case bearing Case Crime No.156/2019, he has been granted bail whereas in other case, chargesheet has not been filed by the police as yet. However, on the basis of the wrong information furnished in the gang chart, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners. 7. It is stated that as per the Government Order dated 2.1.2004 as well as Circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 24.10.2003, only those criminal cases in which chargesheets have been filed, shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of invoking Gangsters Act, 1986. 8. Learned A.G.A. was granted time to seek instructions. Learned A.G.A. on the basis of the instructions, has filed short counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 9. In paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the short counter affidavit, it has been stated that the police after completing investigation, had filed the chargesheet in Case Crime No.156 of 2019 before lodging of impugned F.I.R., however in Case Crime No.312 of 2019, the chargesheet has been prepared by the 12 All. Master @ Ramzan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 429 police and has been submitted in the concerning court on 4.12.2020. Similarly, in Case Crime No.406 of 2020, the police has prepared the chargesheet which has been submitted before the court concerned on 4.12.2020. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under :- "5. That it is relevant to mention here that after completion of investigation in Case Crime No.156 of 2019 registered at Police - Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda under Sections 323, 504, 307 and 302 IPC, 7 CLA Act, charge sheet dated 31.05.2019 was forwarded and received by the concerned Court on 12.06.2019. 6. That in Case crime No.312 of 2019, registered at Police Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, under Sections 504, 506 IPc, chargesheet dated 30.11.2020 was forwarded and received by the concerned court on 04.12.20202. Phototstat copy of the receipt dated 04.12.2020 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.SCA-1 to this Short Counter Affidavit. 7. That in Case Crime No.406/2020, registered at Police - Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, under Sections 352, 504 and 506 IPC, charge sheet dated 29.09.2020 was forwarded and received by the concerned Court on 04.12.2020. Photostat copy of the receipt dated 04.12.20202 is being annexed as Annexure No.SCA-2to this Short Counter Affidavit." 10. As such, it is evidently clear that in Case Crime No.312 of 2019 as well as Case Crime No.406 of 2020, the chargesheets against the petitioners have been filed in the court after lodging of the impugned F.I.R. under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, 1986. 11. It is to be noted that the Government Order dated 2.1.2004 specifically provides that only those criminal cases shall be included in the gang chart in which the police has prepared the chargesheet and the same has been filed before the court concerned. 12. It has also been mentioned in the said Government Order that in case of any misuse by the authorities, the concerning incharge of the police station as well as Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police Incharge of the concerned Districts shall be held responsible. 13. Paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Government Order dated 2.1.2004 are relevant. Paragraphs 5 and 10 of the Government Order dated 2.1.2004 are reproduced :- "5. fdlh Hkh fxjksg ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus ds fy,] mlds fo:) dsoy mUgha ekeyksa dks vkijkf/kd lwph esa lfEefyr ekuuk pkfg,] ftu ekeyksa esa iqfyl }kjk foospuk ds mijkUr vkjksi i= izsf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ftu ekeyksa esa vfUre fjiksVZ izsf"kr dh tk pqdh gS ;k U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k ds mijkUr vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr fd;k tk pqdk gS] mls vkijkf/kd fooj.k esa lfEefyr u fd;k tk;sA 10- ;gk¡ ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fdlh tuin esa bl vf/kfu;e esa fn;s x;s izkfo/kkuksa ds lEcU/k esa fdlh v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh }kjk vius drZO; ikyu dh mis{kk djus vFkok vius vf/kdkj dk nq:i;ksx dk dksbZ ekeyk izdk'k esa vkrk gS rks lEcfU/kr Fkkuk izHkkjh ,oa nks"kh ik;s x;s vf/kdkjh ds vykok tuin ds ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd@ iqfyl v/kh{kd izHkkjh Hkh mRrjnk;h ekus tk;saxsA" 14. It is also to be noted that vide Circular dated 24.10.2003, Director General of Police, U.P. has issued the directions similar to the Government Order dated 2.1.2004 as noted above. 430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Relevant paragraph 2 of Circular dated 24.10.2003 is reproduced as under :- "2- fdlh Hkh fxjksg ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, mlds fo:) dsoy mUgha ekeyksa dks vkijkf/kd lwph esa lfEefyr ekuuk pkfg, ftu ekeyksa esa iqfyl }kjk foospuk ds mijkUr vkjksi&i= iszf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftu ekeyksa esa vfUre fjiksVZ izsf"kr dh tk pqdh gS ;k U;k;ky; }kjk fopkjk.k ds mijkUr vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr fd;k tk pqdk gS] mls vkijkf/kd fooj.k esa lfEefyr u fd;k tk;sA" 15. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the gang chart dated 9.10.2020, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition was prepared on the wrong information with respect to the filing of the chargesheets in the case crime numbers mentioned therein. 16. The impugned F.I.R. on the basis of the aforesaid gang chart as such was lodged on the basis of the wrong information furnished in the gang chart as noted above. 17. As such the writ petition in the given facts and circumstances is hereby allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.0430 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda as well as gang chart dated 9.10.2020, copy of which are annexed as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. 18. However, since it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that now chargesheets in Case Crime No.312 of 2019 and Case Crime No.406 of 2020 against petitioners have already been prepared and filed before the court concerned meaning thereby that in all the criminal cases as mentioned in the gang chart, chargesheets against both the petitioners have been filed as such we hereby give liberty to the competent authority to take a fresh decision in this regard and do the needful. ---------- (2020)12ILR A430 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Misc. Single No. 22981 of 2019 & Misc. Single No. 7563 of 2020 Smt. Jasoda Singh @ Yasoda Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Hemant Kumar Mishra, Arti Ganguly Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Janardan Singh, Ravindra Kumar Singh Constitution of India - Article 227 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 116, Suit for division of holding - Section 207, First Appeal - S. 214, Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure - Petitioner prayed that partition suit filed u/s 116 filed by the opposite parties be set aside & also the interim order be quashed - Held - Alternate Remedy - adequate efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available under Revenue Code against interim order passed in partition suit - grounds urged in petition under Article 227 can also be urged before the Revenue court, who has ample power to deal with the same & if necessary has the power to reject the