# Mohd. Anees v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 838
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-23
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 984 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-anees-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51859
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
Sections 2 & 3 - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial
Activities
(Prevention)
Rules,
2021 - Rules 5(3)(a), 5(3)(e), 8, 16, 17
& 18 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Petitioner challenged FIR dated
22.05.2023 (Case Crime No. 185 of 2023)
under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act,
alleging
non-compliance
with
procedural
rules. Court held: (1) Filing a second writ
petition challenging the same FIR, previously
dismissed on 13.07.2023 in Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition
No.
10390
of
2023,
was
not
maintainable without specific permission from
the Supreme Court, which only allowed filing
an application, not a fresh petition (Sarguja
Transport Service Vs St. Transport Appellate
Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88). (2) New grounds
raised in the second petition, available during
the first petition, indicated an attempt at
bench hunting and abuse of process, as the
Supreme Court's order dated 04.12.2023 in
SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 45613/2023 permitted
only an application, likely a review, not a
fresh challenge. (3) Re-hearing on merits
through
a
review
application
was
impermissible, as it exceeded the scope of
review (Vinod Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2022 (11)
ADJ 25 (DB)). Second writ petition dismissed
with Rs. 20,000/- cost, to be deposited with
the Registrar General for the Allahabad High
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
(Paras 5-12)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit
instituted,
appeal
preferred,
and
application made after the prescribed
period
shall
be
dismissed,
although
limitation has not been set up as a defence.

(2)......."

33. In my view the petition lacks in
merits and is therefore, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 984 of 2024

Mohd. Anees ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sundeep Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
Sections 2 & 3 - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial
Activities
(Prevention)
Rules,
2021 - Rules 5(3)(a), 5(3)(e), 8, 16, 17
& 18 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Petitioner challenged FIR dated
22.05.2023 (Case Crime No. 185 of 2023)
under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act,
alleging
non-compliance
with
procedural
rules. Court held: (1) Filing a second writ
petition challenging the same FIR, previously
dismissed on 13.07.2023 in Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition
No.
10390
of
2023,
was
not
maintainable without specific permission from
the Supreme Court, which only allowed filing
an application, not a fresh petition (Sarguja
Transport Service Vs St. Transport Appellate
Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88). (2) New grounds
raised in the second petition, available during
the first petition, indicated an attempt at
bench hunting and abuse of process, as the
Supreme Court's order dated 04.12.2023 in
SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 45613/2023 permitted
only an application, likely a review, not a
fresh challenge. (3) Re-hearing on merits
through
a
review
application
was
impermissible, as it exceeded the scope of
review (Vinod Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2022 (11)
ADJ 25 (DB)). Second writ petition dismissed
with Rs. 20,000/- cost, to be deposited with
the Registrar General for the Allahabad High
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
(Paras 5-12)

Writ Petition Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Sarguja Transport Service Vs St. Transport
Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88 (Para 6)

2. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2022 (11) ADJ 25
(DB) (Para 10)

3. Shraddha Gupta Vs The St. of U.P., Criminal
Appeal No. 569-570 of 2022 (Para 3, cited in
earlier petition)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan
Singh, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

2. Present petition has been filed with
the following prayers:

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned First Information Report dated
22.05.2023 bearing Case Crime No. 185 of
2023, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Partapur, District Meerut.
4 All. Mohd. Anees Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
839

b. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing
Investigation
Officer
not
to
arrest
petitioner pursuant to impugned first
information report."

(Emphasis supplied)

3. Admittedly, earlier the petitioner
approached this Court challenging the same
First Information Reeport dated 22.5.2023
registered as Case Crime No. 185 of 2023,
under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 by filing a writ
petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 10390 of 2023 (Mohammad Anees vs.
State of UP and others), which was
dismissed on 13.7.2023. The said order is
quoted as under:

"1. Heard Sri Aditya Prasad
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the
State respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed
with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. dated
22.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No.
185 of 2023 under Section 2/3 U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Partapur, District Meerut with a further
prayer not to arrest the petitioner in
pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

3. Submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in the base
FIR the petitioner was not named and he
was granted bail and only two cases have
been mentioned in the gangster chart
against the petitioner.

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that
the petitioner has been chargesheeted in
the base FIR and there are two cases and
provisions of Gangster Act can be imposed
on the basis of solitary case, which issue
has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex
Cour in the case of Shraddha Gupta vs The
State Of Uttar Pradesh decided on 26
April, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 569570 of 2022.

5. On perusal of the record and
the first information report, we find that
cognizable offence is made out. We further
find that Criminal Writ Petition No. 10538
of 2023 filed by the co-accused has already
been dismissed vide order dated 11.7.2023.

6. In view of the above, we do not
find any good ground to take a different
view in the matter.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

4. Against the aforesaid order dated
13.7.2024, the petitioner filed Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).
45613 of 2023 (Mohammed Anees vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.), which, after arguing
for some time, was got dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 4.12.2023, and
after permission having been granted,
liberty was given to the petitioner to
approach the High Court for appropriate
relief. It was further pointed out that if such
an application is filed, the same shall be
considered and decided in accordance with
law. The said order dated 4.12.2023 passed
in the said SLP is quoted as under:

"After arguing for some time,
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
leave to withdraw the special leave
petition.
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Permission granted.

Accordingly, the Special Leave
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to approach the High Court for
appropriate relief. If such an application is
filed, the same shall be considered and
decided in accordance with law."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Perusal of the aforesaid order
clearly reflects that the matter was argued
for some time before the Hon'ble Apex
court and it is only thereafter the Special
Leave Petition was got dismissed as
withdrawn. It is clear that no liberty to file
a fresh writ petition challenging the first
information report impugned herein was
given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was,
however, left open that "if such an
application is filed, the same shall be
considered and decided in accordance with
law". The word "application" clearly
indicates that it is not the permission
granted to file second writ petition for the
same cause of action before this Court, but
only an application in the decided petition
could have been filed, which may be either
review application, which obviously would
have been placed before the same Bench
decided the writ petition (Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 10390 of 2023) and as the
second Judge has been transferred from this
Court, the same would have been placed
before the Bench presided over by the
Senior Judge of that Bench. In that case,
there is no occasion that present petition
would have been placed before the regular
Bench as the roster has changed and there
is a different Bench to consider the fresh
petition on merits afresh. We, however,
find that appropriate Bench after perusal of
the order dated 13.7.2023 passed by the
Bench presided by one of us (Vivek Kumar
Birla, J.) passed the following order on
1.2.2024:

"The petitioner earlier filed a
writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 10390 of 2023 (Mohammad
Anees Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) was
dismissed on 23.07.2023 by the Bench
comprising of
Hon'ble Vivek
Kumar
Birla,J. and Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed SLP being
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Dairy
No(s). 45613 of 2023, which was dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty to approach the
High Court for appropriate relief.

In view of the same, let this case
be listed on 20.02.2024 as fresh before the
appropriate
Bench
after
seeking
nomination from Hon'ble The Acting Chief
Justice."

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order,
present petition has been placed before this
Bench as another second Hon'ble Judge
(Rajendra
Kumar-IV,
J.)
has
been
transferred from this High Court. We find
that filing of second petition challenging
the same impugned FIR, unless the
permission is granted, is not maintainable.
The law has been settled long back by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarguja
Transport Service vs. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88. The
filing
of
second
petition
afresh
on
absolutely different grounds is more glaring
as a different counsel has put in appearance
and has challenged the same impugned FIR
on different grounds and is thus, clearly
seeking re-hearing of the matter before a
different Bench now having jurisdiction
over such matters. The permission was
granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to file
"an application", which obviously would
have been automatically placed before this
4 All. Mohd. Anees Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
841
Bench. Therefore, we find that this is
nothing but an attempt to avoid the Bench,
which had earlier dismissed the petition
and amounts to Bench hunting. The
grounds taken in the earlier writ petition
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of
2023) are quoted as under:

"I. Because the story of impugned
F.I.R. dated 22.05.2023 is concocted
having no truthfulness. In this case no
offence is made out under Section 2/3 U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act 1986 against petitioner
and impugned F.I.R. dated 22.05.2023 is
liable to be quash by this Hon'ble Court.

II. Because the petitioner is
innocent and he has no occasion to
surrender and go behind the bar.

III. Because the petitioner is a
peace loving and law abiding citizen of the
society.

IV. Because both the cases
mentioned in the Gang Chart of the present
case imposed on the petitioner on the single
day in a single instance.

V. Because so far as case of the
Investigation of Case Crime No.110 of
2022 Under Section 3/8 Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, Under Section 11 (Tha)
Animal Cruelty Act and Under Section 34
IPC, Police Station Partapur District
Meerut and Case Crime No.113 of 2022
Under Section3/8 Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act and Under Section34 I.P.C.
Police Station Partapur District- Meerut is
still pending.

VI.
Because
once
the
investigation of aforesaid both the cases is
still pending, in the event there was no
occasion with the Respondent No.2/3 to get
register
the
impugned
F.I.R.
dated
22.05.2023 against the petitioner.

VII. Because under the identical
facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court
has made interference under the Writ
Jurisdiction and quash the F.I.R. of U/s 2/3
U.P. Gangster Act vide order dated
01.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.15593 of 2023.

VIII.
Because
under
the
aforementioned circumstances petitioner
cannot be say as a"Gangster". His alleged
act does not come under the purview of the
"Gangster".

IX.
Because
once
the
investigation of aforesaid both the cases is
still pending, in the event there was no
occasion with the Respondent No.2/3 to get
register
the
impugned
F.I.R.
dated
22.05.2023.

7. Present petition has been filed with
the following grounds:

"A. BECAUSE from perusal of
entire record, it is crystal clear that no
joint meeting of respective authorities were
done in compliance of Section 5(3)(a) of
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021,
therefore,
impugned
first
information
report is liable to be set aside by this
Hon'ble Court.

B. BECAUSE no separate list of
criminal history was attached by the
respondent number 4 while sending the
gang chart for approval before respective
authorities as required under Rule 5(3)(e)
of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021,
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hence impugned first information report is
liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

C.
BECAUSE
no
up-to-date
status of cases mentioned against petitioner
has been mentioned in the gang chart
pursuant to Rule 8 of The Uttar Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-social
Activities
(Prevention)
Rules,
2021,
therefore
impugned first information report is liable
to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

D. BECAUSE Rule 8(3) of The
Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 clearly
says that the latest status of the cases
against the gang, which are being shown in
the gang-chart, regarding their pendency
in the Special Court, the convictions or the
state at which they are in the Court, must
be clearly mentioned, the said mandatory
provision has conveniently skipped by the
respondent number 4, therefore, impugned
first information report is liable to be set
aside by this Hon'ble Court.

E. BECAUSE it is crystal clear
from
the
undated
cognizance
and
summoning order passed pursuant to the
charge sheet dated 29.12.2022 arising out
of Case Crime Number 113 of 2022
registered at Police Station Partapur,
Meerut
that
the
same
was
passed
subsequent to the lodging of present first
information report.

F.
BECAUSE
just
to
accommodate the police authorities in the
impugned first information report, Learned
Magistrate
pass
cognizance
and
summoning order without any date.

G. BECAUSE at the time of
lodging of impugned first information
report, no cognizance order in case arising
of Case Crime Number 113 of 2022 was
passed, hence instant writ petition deserves
to be allowed by this Hon'ble Court on this
ground alone.

H. BECAUSE Rule 18 of The
Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 deals
with Format of the Gang Chart and it
clearly says that the "Gang Chart shall be
sent only in the manner as given in Form
No. 1 of these rules." From perusal of
Form No. (1) Format of Gang Chart,
column number 6 requires Details and
current status of criminal cases.

I. BECAUSE from perusal of the
gang chart enclosed herein above, the same
is completely missing, hence the same is
not according to Rule 18 of The Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-social
Activities
(Prevention)
Rules,
2021;
therefore impugned first information report
is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble
Court.

J. BECAUSE there is no strict
compliance of Rule 16 and 17 of The Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 in the
present case and therefore, impugned first
information report is nothing but a
colorable exercise of power vested in
respondent number 4, therefore impugned
first information report is liable to be set
aside by this Hon'ble Court.

K.
BECAUSE
respective
authorities who are duty bound to look into
as to whether the gang chart has been
prepared according to The Uttar Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-social
Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021 and further as to
whether all the formalities have been
fulfilled or not had clearly overlooked
4 All. Mohd. Anees Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
843
relevant
mandatory
provision
while
approving
gang
chart
resulting
in
impugned first information report, hence
the same is liable to be set aside by this
Hon'ble Court.

L.
BECAUSE
competent
authorities
has
forwarded
their
recommendations in a very casual manner
without applying their independent mind.

M. BECAUSE in the present case,
approval of gang chart is nothing but a
total non-application of independent mind
of
respective
authorities
involved
in
approval of gang chart against petitioner,
therefore, the instant writ petition deserves
to be allowed by this Hon'ble Court by
quashing impugned first information report
dated 22.05.2023.

N. BECAUSE from perusal of
entire available with the petitioner, it is
crystal clear that while approving the
gang-chart, competent District Magistrate,
Meerut did not hold any discussion that any
joint meeting as required under Rule
5(3)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and
Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021 has been held, therefore the same is
clear violation of mandatory provision
implemented with the Rules of 2021.

O. BECAUSE the present first
information report is nothing but an abuse
of the process just to falsely implicate and
humiliate petitioner pursuant to impugned
first information report.

P. BECAUSE police of concerned
police station is raiding the house of
petitioner in order to arrest him; petitioner
had an apprehension that he would be
arrested in connection with the above false
case.

Q.
BECAUSE
first
informant/respondent number 4 has lodged
impugned first information report with
totally false and frivolous story only for the
purpose to drag petitioner in the instant
criminal case.

R. BECAUSE petitioner is ready
and willing to cooperate with pending
investigation with a prayer before this
Hon'ble Court that he may not be arrested
in the present case.

S. BECAUSE allegations leveled
in impugned first information report, even
if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not constitute
the offence alleged, therefore this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to quash impugned
first information report.

T. BECAUSE impugned first
information report seriously hampered the
right of petitioner enshrined under Article
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

U. BECAUSE petitioner is legally
advised that he had no other efficacious,
equally, speedy, alternative remedy except
to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India."

8. Perusal of the grounds would
clearly disclose that the same are entirely
different in nature. This practice cannot be
appreciated as present petition being
second petition having been filed without
there being any permission having been
granted by Hon'ble Apex Court after
hearing the arguments for some time to file
fresh/second petition on different grounds
and as such it is nothing but an abuse of
process of law. We further find that all such
grounds that have been taken in the present
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition were clearly available to the
petitioner at the time of challenging the
impugned order in the earlier petition
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of
2023).

9. Although copy of the Special
Leave Petition has not been annexed with
present petition, however, presumably all
such grounds that are now being taken,
must have been advanced before the
Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter the
petition was sought to be withdrawn for
which permission was granted and in place
of filing review application, second petition
with full knowledge that it would not be
placed before this Bench, was filed by a
new counsel, which, in our opinion, is
nothing but an attempt of Bench hunting
and is thus, an abuse of process of law.

10. At this stage, a prayer was made
that the petition may be permitted to be
withdrawn with liberty to file review
application. We are not inclined to accept
the same, as we have already noticed the
grounds taken in the present petition,
which, as already observed, clearly reflect
that the petitioner is seeking re-hearing of
the matter on merits, which would be
beyond the scope of review application as
per settled law. A Division Bench of this
Court (of which one of us, Vivek Kumar
Birla, J. was the member) has considered
the scope of review in detail in the case of
Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
others, reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 25 (DB).

11. Therefore, even if it is considered
to be a review application, the re-hearing of
matter is not permissible.

12. In such view of the matter, present
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India being second writ
petition
for
the
same
relief
stands
dismissed with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs.
Twenty Thousand), which the petitioner
shall deposit with the Registrar General of
this Court within a period of one month
from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall
be transmitted to the account of 'Allahabad
High Court Mediation and Conciliation
Centre, Allahabad'. If the petitioner fails to
deposit the cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs.
Twenty Thousand), the Registrar General
of this Court shall inform the District
Magistrate/Collector
concerned
for
recovery of the said amount as arrears of
land revenue, who shall after recovering the
said amount from the petitioner, transmit it
to the Registrar General of this Court for
depositing in the account of 'Allahabad
High Court Mediation and Conciliation
Centre, Allahabad' within a further period
of three months.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 844
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4874 of 2024

Umar @ Mohd. Umair ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M. J. Akhtar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - U.P. Control of Goondas
Act, 1970 - Sections 2(b), 3 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 -