# Ranpal Pradhan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1288
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-03
- **Case number:** J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranpal-pradhan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45659
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention)
Act,1986-Sections
2(b)(i)
,2(b)(iii),2(b)(iv),
2(b)(vii),
2(b)(viii),
2(b)(xi), 2(b)(xii) and 3(1)-Quashing of
FIR-challenge to- FIR is bad for want of
gang-chart-Government Orders provide
for the preparation of gang-chart and its
approval-However,
no
specific
terms
mentioned regarding gang-chart ought to
be part of the FIR-Since report of District
Magistrate reveals that most of the
members of the gang are already facing
large number of cases and they are
operating
from
jail-investigation
of
organized criminal activities is necessary
in the interest of society-cognizable case
made out from the allegations made in
the FIR-Hence, dismissed.(Para 3 to 12)

Crl. Misc. writ petition dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

1288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
safeguards/rights which are provided in
Criminal Jurisprudence, including, the
benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut
case of obstruction of administration of
justice by a party intentionally to bring the
matter within the ambit of the said
provision. The case should not rest only on
surmises and conjectures. In Debabrata
Bandopadhyay and others vs. The State
of West Bengal and another19, Supreme
Court observed as under:

"A question whether there is contempt
of court or not is a serious one. The court is both
the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation.
It behoves the court to act with as great
circumspection
as
possible
making
all
allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties
arising from inveterate practices in courts and
tribunals. It is only when a clear case of
contumacious
conduct
not
explainable
otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be
punished......... Punishment under the law of
Contempt is called for when the lapse is
deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and
in defiance of authority. To take action in an
unclear case is to make the law of contempt do
duty for other measures and is not to be
encouraged."

25. In the facts of the instant case, it is not
being disputed by the applicants that the
compensation at the rate determined by the Court
and the interest, thereon, has been paid by
NOIDA. The issue between the parties is
whether applicant is entitled to interest @ 10%
over and above the statutory interest provided
under the Land Acquisition Act. The categorical
stand of NOIDA authority is that they have
satisfied the decree and no further amount is
required to be paid. Rather, it is urged that they
have paid excess amount towards interest.

26. In the given facts the question that
arises is as to whether the alleged disobedience
by NOIDA is wilful and deliberate inviting
punishment. Having regard to the fact that
NOIDA satisfied the decree, though not to the
satisfaction of the applicant, NOIDA authorities
cannot be punished. The disobedience, if any, is
not intentional and wilful. The matter relates to
infringement of a decree or decretal order, it is not
expedient to invoke and exercise contempt
jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode for executing
the decree. The remedy available to the applicant
is to take recourse in execution proceedings and
not in contempt proceedings. Punishment for
disobedience/infringement of a decree is not akin
to execution of the decree. The jurisdiction of a
Contempt Court is distinct and different than that
of the executing Court.

27. For the reasons and law stated herein
above, the petition fails, accordingly dismissed.

28. This order and the observations made
therein would not prejudice the cause of the
applicant in the event the applicant takes remedy
of execution of the decree.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1288

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,
J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1077 of 2020

Ranpal Pradhan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smt. Swati Agrawal Srivastava

Counsel
for
the
Respondents:
2 All. Ranpal Pradhan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1289
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention)
Act,1986-Sections
2(b)(i)
,2(b)(iii),2(b)(iv),
2(b)(vii),
2(b)(viii),
2(b)(xi), 2(b)(xii) and 3(1)-Quashing of
FIR-challenge to- FIR is bad for want of
gang-chart-Government Orders provide
for the preparation of gang-chart and its
approval-However,
no
specific
terms
mentioned regarding gang-chart ought to
be part of the FIR-Since report of District
Magistrate reveals that most of the
members of the gang are already facing
large number of cases and they are
operating
from
jail-investigation
of
organized criminal activities is necessary
in the interest of society-cognizable case
made out from the allegations made in
the FIR-Hence, dismissed.(Para 3 to 12)

Crl. Misc. writ petition dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. &
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Smt. Swati Agrawal
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the
respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred this
petition for quashing of the F.I.R. dated
30.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0457
of 2019 under Sections 2(b)(i), 2(b)(iii),
2(b)(iv), 2(b)(vii), 2(b)(viii), 2(b)(xi), 2(b)(xii)
and 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Badalpur, District Gautam Buddh
Nagar.

3. The first argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that as the gang-chart is not
enclosed with the F.I.R., it is bad in law.

4. We had given time to the counsel to
show us the provision of law which mandates
enclosure of the gang-chart with the F.I.R.

5. In that connection, she has produced
two Government Orders dated 30.06.2014 and
25.06.2018.

6. The aforesaid Government Orders
provide for the preparation of the gang-chart
and for its approval, but none of them in any
specific terms mentions that the gang-chart
ought to be part of the F.I.R.

7. In view of the above, the said
Government Orders are of no help to the
petitioner and the argument that the F.I.R. is
bad for want of gang-chart with the F.I.R. is
without any substance.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next
submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged
without preparing the gang-chart and getting
its approval but we find no pleadings in this
regard in the petition or in the supplementary
affidavit. On the contrary, the F.I.R. mentions
that the gang-chart was prepared and
approved. The averments to the said effect
contained in the F.I.R. cannot be ignored and
said to be false.

9. The F.I.R. mentions that D.M.,
Gautam Buddh Nagar has submitted a
report strongly recommended for invoking
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 and that the report
of the D.M. in this regard is quite
revealing. The relevant part of the said
report as referred to in the F.I.R. reads as
under-:

"It shows a very dangerous trend
of serious crime by the gang and its
members. It appears that the gang has
become too large. There is an urgent need
to bring these unlawful activities within
the provisions of law. Else the economic
and social life of district Gautam Buddh
1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nagar, which is a show window of U.P.
and has very high financial interest will
significantly get affected adversely. The
report clearly suggest that there cannot be
a better case under the U.P. Gangsters and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 than this. On perusal of the history
sheet shows that though some cases have
been registered under the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 but they are against the few gang
members only and for particular crime.
Such pattern of structure and function of
organized criminals working hand in glove
together was never taken cognizance of
earlier and therefore this report and
proposed action under the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 by Gautam Buddh Nagar police will
prove to be a landmark case in the
investigation of such organized criminal
activities in the district."

11. The F.I.R. reveals that most of the
members of the gang are already facing
large number of criminal cases and that
they are operating from jail.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, as the allegations made in
the F.I.R. make out a cognizable offence
against the petitioner and the matter
requires investigation, it is not a fit case
for quashing the F.I.R. in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.

13. Accordingly, we decline to
exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in
the matter and the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1290

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2038 of 2002

Smt. Kamla Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Dhirendra Singh Rajput

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-section
397/401
&
Indian Penal Code,1860-section 498Amaintainibility of-application for revision
made under the erroneous belief that no
appeal lies thereto in case of acquittalwhile preferring appeal against acquittal
u/s 378 Cr.P.C. revisionist preferred
Criminal
revision
which
is
not
maintainable as per statutory provisionhence,dismissed.(Para 3 to 7)

B. Criminal Law-As per Sub-section 5 of
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. "where under this
code an appeal lies but an application for
revision has been made to the High Court
by any person and the High court is
satisfied that such application was made
under the erroneous belief that no appeal
lies thereto and that it is necessary in the
interest of justice so to do, the High Court
may treat the application for revision as a
petition of appeal and deal with the same
accordingly."(Para 5)

Criminal Revision dismissed.(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. The present criminal revision has
been preferred against the acquittal order
dated 21.09.2002 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Orai District Jalun in