# Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 27
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3938 of 2021
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, J. Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ritesh-kumar-rikki-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47568
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 - U.P. Gangsters and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986-Section 2/3-quashing of FIR-the
scheme of the Act 1986 nowhere prohibits
lodging of first information report under
the Act on the basis of a single case,
provided the ingredients of the definition
of 'Gang' u/s 2(b) of the Act, 1986 is
prima facie satisfied.(Para 1 to 23)

B. Where a group of persons act 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 of himself or any other
person, indulge in anti-social activities as
described in sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) of
Section 2(b), they shall be a 'Gang' as
defined in Section 2(b).(Para 19, 20)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,983 of 49,454. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39983 for what follows._

9 All. Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
27

23. For all the reasons afore-stated,
we do not find any merit in all these writ
petitions and accordingly, all the writ
petitions being CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT
PETITION No. - 642 of 2021, CRIMINAL
MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 798 of
2021
CRIMINAL
MISC.
WRIT
PETITION
No.
-
17198
of
2020,
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.
- 17194 of 2020, CRIMINAL MISC.
WRIT PETITION No. - 1243 of 2021,
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.
- 1403 of 2021, CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT
PETITION No. - 1306 of 2021 and
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.
- 1411 of 2021, are hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A27
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, .J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3938 of 2021
and other related cases

Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Utsav Singh, Sri Vinay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law -Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 - U.P. Gangsters and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986-Section 2/3-quashing of FIR-the
scheme of the Act 1986 nowhere prohibits
lodging of first information report under
the Act on the basis of a single case,
provided the ingredients of the definition
of 'Gang' u/s 2(b) of the Act, 1986 is
prima facie satisfied.(Para 1 to 23)

B. Where a group of persons act 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 of himself or any other
person, indulge in anti-social activities as
described in sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) of
Section 2(b), they shall be a 'Gang' as
defined in Section 2(b).(Para 19, 20)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ajay Rai Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (1995) Cr.L.J.
2801

2. Rinku @ Hukku Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2000)
Cr.L.J. 2834 Kishan Pal @ K.P. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr. (2006) 54 ACC 1015

3. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P. (1987) Alld
235

4. Subhash Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(1998) SCC
Online All 973

5. Shamsul Isham Vs St. of U.P. (1999) 38 ACC
315

6. Rinku@ Hukku Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2001)
Suppl ACC 641 (HC-LB)

7. Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs St. of U.P &
ors.,(2006 56 AC 433

8. Satya Pal Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2000)
Cr.L.J.569

9. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. (1992) AIR
SC 604

10. St. of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jellani
(2017) 2 SCC 779

11. M/s Neeharika Infrastracture Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
St. of Mah. & ors. CRLA No. 330 of 2021
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Matter taken up through video
conferencing.

2. The above-mentioned 12 writ
petitions are connected together with 11
other writ petitions and are listed today in
the additional / unlisted list and as such, a
total of 23 writ petitions are connected
together. Out of 23 writ petitions connected
together, one writ petition being Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 4216 of 2021
(Manish vs. State of U.P. and 03 others)
has been prayed to be dismissed as
infructuous
by
the
learned
counsel
appearing
therein
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner and as such, separate order has
been passed dismissing the same as being
infructuous.

3. The above-mentioned 12 writ
petitions have been stated to be urgent in
nature by the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioners and they have
prayed that their cases be heard and
decided inspite of non-appearance of other
learned
counsels
appearing
in
the
connected
matters
to
which
learned
Additional
Government
Advocates
appearing for the State of U.P. have no
objection and as such, this Court proceeds
to hear and decide the above-mentioned 12
writ petitions on their own merits.

4. The present bunch of writ petitions
along
with other
writ
petitions
are
connected together on the following
question :

"Whether a first information
report under the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
[hereinafter referred to as the ''Gangsters
Act'] can be lodged and is maintainable on
the basis of involvement of the petitioner(s)
/ accused in a single previous case".

5. The common ground as raised in all
the writ petitions is that the petitioners have
been made accused in the impugned first
information reports which have been
lodged under the provisions of the
Gangsters Act on the basis of their
involvement in a solitary case and even the
gang chart prepared and approved by the
authority shows that there is a single case
against them on the basis of which, the
impugned first information report has been
registered which is illegal and against the
essence of the Gangsters Act. The said first
information report could not have been
lodged on the basis of a solitary case and as
such, the said writ petitions should be
allowed and the respective impugned first
information reports be quashed.

6. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
3938 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
0069 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station
Kotwali,
District
Basti.
Sri
Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel
appearing in matter argued that:

(i) The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case on the basis
of concocted facts and influence of illegal
politics.

(ii)
The
impugned
first
information report has been lodged on the
basis of a single case shown against the
petitioner in which he has been granted bail
vide order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the
trial court.

(iii) No offence whatsoever is
made out against the petitioner.
9 All. Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29

(iv) There is no independent
witness of the alleged incident and the story
narrated by the police is false. The
petitioner is a peace loving and law abiding
citizen.

(v) The lodging the impugned
first information report on the basis of a
solitary case is illegal. There is no evidence
on record to show that the petitioner is
either a gang leader or member of any gang
as there is no evidence whatsoever to show
that there was a meeting of mind of persons
to commit the offence. There is no
evidence to show that the petitioner along
with co-accused collectively committed the
offence. There is no material to show that
the alleged gang is operating.

7. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
1296 of 2021 has been filed challenging
the first information report of Case Crime
No. 297 of 2020, under Sections 2/3 (1)
of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police
Station
Colonelganj,
District
Prayagraj. Sri Aadesh Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing in the matter
argued that:

(i)
The
entire
allegations
levelled against the petitioner is false,
frivolous, perverse and without any legs
to stand and as such, the impugned first
information report is liable to be quashed.

(ii) The petitioner is a respected
person having good academic record and
at the time of the incident, was preparing
for his third year of graduation and his
name has been dragged in the present
case by some political persons.

(iii) The single case on the basis
of which the impugned first information
report has been registered is a false case in
which the petitioner has been falsely
implicated and he has been granted bail
vide order dated 03.03.2020 by the trial
court.

(iv) The petitioner is neither a
gang leader nor a member of any gang and
is not involved in any illegal activity.

(v) There is no direct evidence
against the petitioner and the name of the
petitioner has been dragged in the said
matter
solely
on
the
basis
of
his
confessional statement while he was in
police custody.

(vi) As such, the impugned first
information report be quashed.

8. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
1871 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
0028 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 , Police
Station Dhaulana, District Hapur. Sri Shiv
Vilas Mishra, learned counsel appearing in
the matter has argued that :

(i) The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the
gang chart only one case has been shown
against the petitioner on the basis of which
the impugned first information report has
been registered and in the said case the
petitioner has been granted bail vide order
dated 10.04.2019 passed by this Court. The
case in which the petitioner has been shown
to be involved is a false case and the police
after getting a tip off information, arrested
the petitioner and other persons and has
shown some recoveries on the basis of joint
confessional statement. There is no public
or independent witness of the alleged
recovery. The said case is a false case and
the petitioner has been falsely implicated
therein.

(ii) The said case is a case of the
year 2019 and is an old case. No recent
case has been shown against the petitioner.
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The impugned first information report has
been registered on 28.01.2021. The said
case on the basis of which the impugned
first information report has been registered
and the gang chart has been prepared is a
stale case and there is no evidence against
the petitioner being involved in any activity
which could be said to be a recent activity
against law.

(iii)
Section
2
(b)
of
the
Gangsters Act has been placed before the
Court and the learned counsel has stressed
upon the word ''acting' and proceeded to
argue that there is no evidence or allegation
to show that the petitioner ''continued to
act' and had a ''recent activity' of any
indulgence in any illegal activity.

9. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
1873 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
61 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh. Sri
Araf Khan, learned counsel appearing in
the matter has argued that :

(i) The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case on the basis
of his involvement in a single case and in
the said case, the arrest of the petitioner has
been stayed by a Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 30.05.2019.

(ii) The basis on which the
impugned first information report has been
registered is a case of civil nature. After the
protective order in favour of the petitioner
by this Court, charge-sheet has been
submitted against him and cognizance has
been taken by the concerned Magistrate
which is illegal and is without any
evidence. The petitioner is a law abiding
and peace living citizen of the society and
is innocent. He has not committed any
offence and is not a member of any gang.

(iii) It is stated that he does not
intend to argue that a case under the
Gangsters Act cannot be lodged on the
basis of involvement in one case as the
same can very well be done. Even if the
first information report cannot be quashed,
at least the interest of the petitioner be
protected by giving him a protective order.

10. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
1986 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
0192 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Pisava, District Aligarh. Sri Devesh
Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing
in the matter has argued that:

(i) The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The lodging
of the impugned first information report is
on the basis of involvement of the
petitioner only in one case in which he has
been
granted bail
vide
order dated
11.11.2020 passed by this Court.

(ii) No offence is made out
against the petitioner and the case has been
registered because of enmity and local
party bandi.

(iii) The petitioner is neither a
leader nor a member of any gang.

11. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
2019 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
0045 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Amroha City, District Amroha. Sri
Jameel Ahmad Azmi, learned counsel
appearing in the matter has argued that:
9 All. Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31

(i)
The
impugned
first
information report has been registered
against
the
petitioner
showing
his
involvement only in one case. The
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case.

(ii)
The
petitioner
is
a
businessman and is engaged in the business
of Sandal Wood by following all legal
procedures and norms. The sole case shown
against the petitioner in the gang chart was
challenged before this Court in which vide
order dated 11.11.2020, the arrest of the
petitioner has been stayed by a Division
Bench of this Court while disposing of the
said writ petition.

(iii) The case of the petitioner
does not fall under Section 2 (b) of the
Gangsters Act.

12. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
2291 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
34 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Jasrana, District Firozabad. Sri
Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing in
the matter has argued that :

(i) The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. According to
the gang chart, one case has been shown
against the petitioner on the basis of which
the impugned first information report has
been lodged and in the said case, the
petitioner has been granted bail vide order
dated 20.01.2021 passed by the trial court.

(ii) The said case on the basis of
which the impugned first information
report has been registered was lodged
against 02 unknown persons. Subsequently,
the name of the petitioner surfaced during
investigation which is the handy work of
the police. Persons of the said case were
not known to the petitioner and despite this
fact, a false case has been registered against
him. 04 persons were arrested in a different
case who named the petitioner as a person
in whose shop they had sold part of a gold
chain and as such, the petitioner has been
implicated in the said case.

13. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
3819 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
296 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah. Sri
Narayan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel
appearing in the matter has argued that:

(i) The petitioners are peace loving
and law abiding citizens and have never
involved themselves in any type of criminal
activity.

(ii) Although the impugned first
information report has been lodged showing
the involvement of the petitioners in one case
but in the said case they have been granted
bail vide order dated 24.09.2020 passed by
the trial court. The prosecution case as
narrated in the first information report is
absolutely false and concocted and without
any documentary proof or any support of any
independent witness because the petitioners
have never been arrested on the spot and the
allegations are fake and fabricated. The entire
prosecution case has been initiated on the
basis of wrong facts and false, concocted and
fabricated story in collusion with the local
political persons who have a grudge against
the petitioners. No prima facie case is made
out against the petitioners.

(iii) The petitioners are neither
members of a gang nor gang leader.

14. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
3845 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
first information report of Case Crime No.
255 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station
Gajraula,
District
J.P.
Nagar
(Amroha). Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing in the matter has
argued that :

(i) The petitioners have been
falsely implicated in the present case. Only
one case has been shown against the
petitioner nos. 1 & 2 being of the year 2020
in which they have been granted bail vide
orders dated 10.09.2020 and 21.09.2020
passed by the trial court. The petitioner no. 3
is also said to be involved in one case but the
said case is of the year 2019 and even in the
said case, he has been granted bail vide order
dated 03.07.2019 passed by the trial court.
Except for the single case against the
petitioners, there is no other case shown
against them.

(ii) The petitioners do not run any
gang and have not given threat to any public
and have been falsely shown as gangsters.

(iii) In so far as the petitioner no. 3
is concerned, the impugned first information
report has been registered on 17.04.2021
where as the solitary case against him is a
stale case and as such, he adopts the
arguments as raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 1871 of 2021 to this extent.

15. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
4149 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
159 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Baberu, District Banda. Sri Pradip
Kumar Rao, learned counsel appearing in
the matter has argued that :

(i) The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The
involvement of the petitioner has been
shown in the gang chart in two cases of the
year 2019 and in both the cases, the
petitioner has been released on bail vide
orders dated 14.11.2019 passed by this
Court.

(ii) The petitioner has been
falsely shown as a gang leader of the gang
and the offence under the Arms Act as
shown against the petitioner being two
cases do not fall within the purview of
Gangsters Act.

(iii) There is no ingredient of
Gangsters Act in the impugned first
information report and as such, the
petitioner cannot be said to be indulged in
any criminal activity.

(iv) The lodging of the first
information report is totally false and
baseless.

16. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
4185 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
0204 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Kharkhauda, District Meerut. Sri
Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, learned counsel
appearing in the matter has argued that :

(i) The petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He is a
peace loving, law abiding citizen and
commands respect in the locality. The
involvement of the petitioner in the present
case is shown on the basis of a single case
in which the petitioner was issued a notice
under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C. by the
Investigating Officer in pursuance of which
he appeared before him and was released
by him.
9 All. Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33

(ii)
The
petitioner
has
not
committed any offence, no offence is made
out against him. The first information
report has been lodged with malafide
intentions.

17. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
4280 of 2021 has been filed challenging the
first information report of Case Crime No.
05 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Manchi, District Sonbhadra. Sri
Anubhav
Shukla,
learned
counsel
appearing in the matter has argued that :

(i) The involvement of the
petitioners in the present case is on the
basis of a single case in which the
petitioner no. 1 was not named in the first
information report and his name came into
picture after 09 months of the incident
whereas the petitioner no. 2 was not
arrested by the police and even then
charge-sheet has been submitted against
both.

(ii) Lodging of the case on the
basis
of
which
the
impugned
first
information report has been lodged is a
fake first information report and the
petitioners are not members of any gang.

(iii)
Lodging
of
the
first
information report is an abuse of process of
court and the action of police is arbitrary,
illegal, malafide and with an intention to
harass the petitioners.

18. Per contra, Sri J.K. Upadhyay and
Sri
Amit
Sinha,
learned
Additional
Government Advocates appearing for the
State of U.P. argued that :

(i) Under the Gangsters Act,
lodging of the first information reports
even on the basis of the involvement of an
accused in a single and solitary case is not
illegal. The said proposition of law has
been dealt with in the judgements of this
Court in the case of Ajay Rai vs. State of
U.P. and others: 1995 Cr.L.J. 2801; Rinku
@ Hukku vs. State of U.P. and another:
2000 Cr.L.J. 2834 and Kishan Pal @ K.P.
vs. State of U.P. and another: (2006) 54
ACC 1015. The said three cases in no
indifferent terms have held that lodging of
a first information report on the basis of a
single case is permissible.

(ii) The implication of an accused
in a single case is not a bar in lodging of a
first
information
report
under
the
provisions of the Gangsters Act even after a
considerable period of time.

(iii) Since the perusal of the first
information report discloses commission of
a cognizable offence, the impugned first
information reports cannot be quashed.

(iv) Barring Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 4149 of 2021 which is though
connected with this bunch but the same has
the implication of the petitioner therein on
the basis of two cases, the other cases being
argued on the premise that lodging of the
first information report under the Gangsters
Act on the basis of a solitary case is not
permissible, is incorrect. In the said
judgements, it has been held that a first
information report under the Gangsters Act
can be registered on the basis of a solitary
case.

(v) Since perusal of the impugned
first information reports in all the cases do
disclose
commission
of
an
offence,
investigation
is
required
and
since
investigation is required, the said first
information reports cannot be quashed.

(vi) The efforts of the learned
counsels for the petitioners to demonstrate
that their involvement in the previous case
on the basis of which the impugned first
information reports have been registered
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are false implications, cannot be gone into
by this Court as the said cases are not the
matters to be adjudicated by this Court and
are separate cause of actions.

(vii) Since a cognizable offence is
made out on the reading of the first
information reports in all the cases,
investigation is required and as such, the
same cannot be quashed and so no interim
order of protection can also be granted as
per settled principles of law.

(viii) The present writ petitions
are devoid of any merit and deserve to be
dismissed.

19. Before dealing with the question
in issue, it will be apt to reproduce Section
2 (b) and (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 which are as follows:-

"(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
9 All. Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
35
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
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;

(xxv) indulging in crimes that
impact security of State, public order and
even tempo of life.]

(c) "gangster" means a member
or leader or organiser of a gang and
includes any person who abets or assists in
the activities of a gang enumerated in
clause (b), whether before or after the
commission of such activities or harbours
any person who has indulged in such
activities;"

20. The proposition as to whether a
first information report under the Gangsters
Act can be lodged on the basis of
involvement of an accused in only once
case is no more res integra.

21. In the judgement of Ajay Rai
(supra) paragraph 6, 9 and 10 are as
follows:-

"6. As a law point alone was
urged concerning interpretation of the term
"indulges" as aforesaid, the State counsel
was heard even without a counter affidavit
on facts. It was urged by him that the FIR
was a competent one as the ingredients of
the term "gang" and "gangster" were made
out therein.

9. As to meaning of the term
"indulges", the learned counsel relied on
the dictionary meaning as given by the
Webstar Dictionary and one of such
meaning, according to the learned counsel,
is to yield to the desire of or to get pleasure
in doing etc. The Chamber's English
Dictionary interprets the term "indulge" as
a transitive verb "to yield to the wishes of",
"to favour or gratify" and "not to restrain"
and this term is also an intransitive verb
meaning "permit oneself in action or
expression. This meaning is to be given
when the term is used with proposition
"in". The definition, as per Section 2, not
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
only uses the term "indulges", the term is
immediately followed by the word "in" and
we may, therefore, safely take the term to
mean to permit oneself in action or
expression. Thus, we may say that the terms
"indulge in" in the definition of "gang"
would carry the same meaning as "does" or
"commits". These two common terms have
been avoided by the legislature apparently
for the reason that the terms "indulge in"
are followed by two words "anti-social
activities." Moreover, there are certain
actions detailed in the next 15 sub-clauses
the doing of which may not strictly come
within the term "commits". We may look to
the paragraphs 10 to 13 and 15 of the
clauses in Section 2(b) in appreciating this
view.

10. If the legislature had the
intention that the Act would be applicable
only to past proven acts, there was no bar
for the legislature to have used the word
"habitually" within the definition of gang.
We may look to the preamble of the Act for
interpreting this definition. This Act was
enacted to make special provisions for the
prevention of and for coping with gangster
and anti-social activities and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto."

22. A Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of
U.P.: AIR 1987 Allahabad 235, has stated
about the concept behind lodging of a first
information report under the Gangsters Act.
It has been held in paragraph 73 and 74 as
follows:-

"73. In this behalf, provisions of
the
Act
themselves
provide
intrinsic
guidelines. If we advert to Section 2(b) of
the Act. which defines the term 'gangster'
we would find significant words. They are
"acting", 'singly or collectively', 'violence
or
show
of
violence',
'intimidation',
'coercion', or unlawful means'. Thus, for
booking a person under the provisions of
the Act the authorities have to be prima
facie satisfied that a person has acted. The
authority has to be satisfied that there is a
reasonable
and
proximate
connection
between the occurrence and the activity of
the person sought to be apprehended and
that such activities were to achieve undue
temporal, physical, economic or other
advantage. There need not be any overt or
positive act of the person intended to be
apprehended at the place. It is enough to
prove active complicity which has a
bearing on the crime.

74. While laying down so, we
should not be oblivious of the avowed
object of the Act. Under the ordinary
criminal law, it is sometimes difficult to
bring to book the overlords of crime and
underworld because they seldom operate in
person or in the public gaze. They indulge
in clandestine operations which threaten to
tear apart the very fabric of society. It is
this purpose which the Act seeks to
achieve."

23. In the case of Subhash vs. State
of U.P. and another: 1998 SCC Online All
973, a Division Bench of this Court framed
the following questions while dealing with
a writ petition in which there was a
challenge to the first information reports
under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986. The questions as framed are
enumerated
in
paragraph
1
of
the
judgement which is as follows:-

"1. In all these matters the
respective petitioners have challenged their
prosecution for an offence under Sections 2
and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act (in short
''the Act'). Prayers have been made for
9 All. Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
37
quashing the respective F.I.Rs. and for
interim orders protecting them from arrest.
The questions, that have been raised, may
be categorised as follows:

1. There could not be prosecution
under the Act for a single incident as the
Act spoke of "anti-social activities" (in
plural).

2. Prosecution under the Act for
past offences was not thought of.

3. If at all the Act created a new
concept of an offence, there must be some
allegation that any act or omission towards
the commission of the offence was there.

4. The words "indulges in" as
used in Section 2 of the Act would only
mean that there should be habituality of the
acts covered by Section 2."

The
answer
to
the
questions
enumerated
in
paragraph
1
of
the
judgement have been given in paragraph
nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said
judgement which are as follows:-

"13. As a sequel to this decision
when there are some allegations of any act
or omission towards the commission of the
offfence under the Act to justify an F.I.R., it
follows that such an F.I.R. could lie even
for a single incident as habituality of the
acts is not required for making out an
offence. The words used in Section 2 are no
doubt in plural indicating "indulge in antisocial activities" but the sentence does not
stop with the words "anti-social activities".
It goes on with the word, "viz." followed by
15
clauses
of
anti-social
activities
enumerated therein. The plural in "antisocial activities" referred to the large
number of activities to be brought under
the umbrella of this single offence and it
would never mean that there must be
plurality of actions before a person could
he prosecuted or convicted for an offence
under the Act. When a specific offence has
been created, it is open to be punished even
for a single act, if it is covered by the
requirements of law. We, thus, answer
point No. 1 framed by us.

14. We are left with the question
whether prosecution under the Act was
thought of for past offences. We may, for a
decision on this point, refer to the
definition of the term "gang" as given in
Section 2(b) of the Act. The requirement of
this definition are that (1) "Gang" means a
group of persons, (2) those persons might
act either single or collectively, (3) such
action is to be associated with violence or
threat or show of violence or intimidation
or coercion or otherwise, (4) such action
must be with the object of disturbing public
order or of gaining any undue advantage
(temporal
pecuniary,
material
or
otherwise) for himself or for any other
person. If under the condition of the above
points anti-social activities, as enumerated
under the definition, are indulged in then
and then only the action could be designed
as an action of a gang. If a person is a
member or a leader or organiser of a gang,
or if he abets or assists in the activities of a
gang or harbours any person who has
indulged in such activities, such person
would be a gangster and he is to be
punished with the penalty as indicated in
Section 3 of the Act. All the anti-social
activities enumerated under the definition
of ''Gang' are not covered as offences, but
were certainly unlawful activities having
serious reflection on the society, though not
termed as offences. The law, thus, never
required that offence must have been
committed in the past for a proper
prosecution under this Act.

15. Section 4 of the Act speaks of
special rules of evidence and States as
under:

"4. Special Rules of Evidence.--
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contained in the Court (Code) or the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) for the
purposes of trial and punishment for
offences under this Act or connected
offences;

(a) the Court may take into
consideration the fact that the accused
was--

(i) on any previous occasion
bound down under Section 107 or Section
108 or Section 109 or Section 110 of the
Code, or

(ii) detained under any law
relating to preventive detention, or

(iii) externed under the Uttar
Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (Act
No. 8 of 1971), or any other such law;

(b) where it is proved that a
gangster or any person on his behalf is or
has at any time been, in possession of
movable or immovable property which he
cannot satisfactorily account for, or where
his
pecuniary
resources
are
disproportionate to his known sources of
income, the Court shall, unless contrary is
proved, presume that such property or
pecuniary resources, have been acquired
or derived by his activities as a gangster;

(c) where it is proved that the
accused has kidnapped or abducted any
person, the Court shall, presume that it was
for ransom;

(d) where it is proved that a
gangster has wrongfully concealed or
confined a kidnapped or abducted person,
the Court shall presume that the gangster
knew that such person was kidnapped or
abducted, as the case may be;

(e) the Court may, if for reasons
to be × × × × × × × × × recorded it thinks
fit so to do, proceed with the trial in
absence of the accused and record the
evidence of any witness, provided that the
witness may be recalled for crossexamination if the accused so desires but
recording his examination in chief afresh in
presence of the accused shall not be
necessary."

Under these special rules of
evidence, the Court is entitled to take into
consideration the previous orders binding
down an accused under Sections 107, 108,
109 or 110 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, or previous orders of detention
under preventive laws, or previous orders
of externment under the U.P. Control of
Goondas Act, but the special rules of
evidence do not permit consideration of
previous conviction for an offence under
any other law. This also suggests that the
past acts are not meant to be punished
under the provisions of the present
legislation.

16.
In
dealing
with
the
procedures, Section 7 of the Act provides
that only a special Court constituted under
the Act is to take up a case under this Act,
is to try an offence under this Act, and
Section 10 provides that the special Court
is empowered to take cognizance of any
offence triable by it, without there being a
regular commitment order and cognizance
could be taken either on complaint or a
police report. Section 8 provides that when
a
special
Court
tries
any
offence
punishable under this Act, it can also try
any other offence with which the accused
may, under any other law for the time being
in force, be charged at the same trial. This
suggests that if by a single act of omission
the offender commits an offence under the
general law as also one under this Act,
both the offences may be tried together
before the special Court. This saves the
provisions of Section 300(4), Cr. P.C., as
was observed by the Division Bench in Ajai
Rai's case (supra) at paragraph 13 of that
judgment. We may, therefore, conclude that
allegations of past acts may not be the sole
criterion for institution of a case for an
9 All. Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
39
offence under this Act, rather if there be old
cases pending on the date of institution of
the F.I.R. under any other offence and for
the same set of facts a case under this Act
is also instituted, then those cases should
also come to the special Court to avoid
double jeopardy to the accused. We may,
therefore, answer point No.