# Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11077 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukarmpal-amit-jat-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51174
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - U.P. Gangster and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
Section 3(1) - U.P. Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
- Rule 4(2) - Quashing of FIR - Impugned
FIR was registered u/s 3(1) of Gangster
Act without mentioning corresponding
provision of Section 2(b) of Gangster Act -
Base case was registered u/s 60,63 of
Excise Act and Sections 419, 420, 307,
467, 468, 471 IPC in which charge-sheet
was filed on 14.02.2020 and there was no
material to show that base case comes
within purview of Gangster Act, though
the same was punishable under Excise Act
and IPC and charge sheet was filed more
than three years back, therefore, bar of
proviso of Rule 4(2) was applicable and
petitioner couldn't be named as a
member of gang on basis of base case
mentioned in gang chart. (Para 20)
Court observed that if Gangster Act was
imposed against a person and chargesheet was filed then any subsequent
illegal activities falling within Sub-section
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of Gangster Act
would come within purview of Gangster
Act, if there was supporting material
regarding his involvement in activities of a
gang and in that case the Gangster Act
could be imposed, even after three years.
(Para 21)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
crowd
continued
stonepelting
which
resulted in the smashing of the wind screen
of one Car registration number of which
has been mentioned in the FIR and firing of
one gun shot in the air. This incident
happened in between 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm
at night on 13.10.2024 and the informant
has also referred to evidence being made
available in CCTV footage if it is examined
by the police during the investigation.

20. The initial FIR that was lodged on
15.10.2024 by the police official concerned
related to a general information regarding the
incident
which
happened
during
the
immersion procession of Devi Durga idols
where one person was shot as a result
whereof crowd got angry and destroyed the
shops of the other community through stonepelting and setting them on fire whereas the
FIR that was lodged on 18.10.2024 at 05:11
pm by the public representative, the sitting
MLA of Mahasi Constituency with regard to
the incident where the named accused
alongwith others were holding Dharna
Pradarshan with the body of the deceasedvictim
and
not
letting
the
District
Administration and the Police Authorities
from carrying out their public duties
regarding the autopsy of the deceased-victim
by taking his body to the mortuary for post
mortem examination. There was firing of gun
shot in the air also.

21. Prima facie, we do not find that the
second FIR which was lodged on 18.10.2024
and which has been challenged in these
petitions to be a part of the same transaction.
It is related to a subsequent development and
the Section of the B.N.S. invoked in the same
are not identical and do not relate to the same
incident or the same accused.

22. We, therefore, do not find any
good ground to show interference, as
prayed for, in these petitions, hence, they
are dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11077 of 2024

Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Babu Lal Ram, Ramesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - U.P. Gangster and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
Section 3(1) - U.P. Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
- Rule 4(2) - Quashing of FIR - Impugned
FIR was registered u/s 3(1) of Gangster
Act without mentioning corresponding
provision of Section 2(b) of Gangster Act -
Base case was registered u/s 60,63 of
Excise Act and Sections 419, 420, 307,
467, 468, 471 IPC in which charge-sheet
was filed on 14.02.2020 and there was no
material to show that base case comes
within purview of Gangster Act, though
the same was punishable under Excise Act
and IPC and charge sheet was filed more
than three years back, therefore, bar of
proviso of Rule 4(2) was applicable and
petitioner couldn't be named as a
member of gang on basis of base case
mentioned in gang chart. (Para 20)
Court observed that if Gangster Act was
imposed against a person and chargesheet was filed then any subsequent
illegal activities falling within Sub-section
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of Gangster Act
would come within purview of Gangster
Act, if there was supporting material
regarding his involvement in activities of a
gang and in that case the Gangster Act
could be imposed, even after three years.
(Para 21)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Asim @ Hassim Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2024 (1)
ADJ 125 DB, (Para 9)

2. Dharmendra @ Bhima & anr. Vs St. of U.P.
and four others (Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 1049 of
2024, order dated 04.03.2024)

3. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P.; 1987 SCC
Online All 203, (Para 15 and 73)

4. St. of U.P. Vs Babu Ram; 1961 SC 751
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arjun Singh Yadav,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Babu Lal Ram,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred for quashing the FIR dated
29.02.2024 registered as Case Crime No.28
of 2024, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, Police Station- Alinagar, District-
Chandauli and for a direction to respondentsState not to take coercive action against the
petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that from perusal of the gang
chart of the impugned FIR, it is clear that the
charge sheet in the base case was filed on
20.12.2020 and after that, no case was
registered against the petitioner and after
more than three years impugned FIR was
lodged on 29.02.2024 by approving the gang
chart on 14.02.2024 which is in violation of
proviso of Rule 4(2) of U.P. Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
'Gangster Rules'). It is further submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned FIR was registered under Section
3(1) of the Gangster Act without mentioning
the corresponding provision of Section 2(b)
of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short the
'Gangster Act') on the basis of which he was
named a gangster, which is against the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Asim
@ Hassim vs State of U.P. and another;
2024 (1) ADJ 125 DB.

4. Per contra, learned counsel AGA
for the State has submitted that case of the
petitioner does not cover under the proviso of
Rules 4(2) of the Gangster Rules, as the same
is regarding the offences which do not fall
within the purview of the Gangster Act. It
is also submitted by learned AGA that so
far as contention of counsel for the
petitioner that guidelines issued in the
judgment of Asim @ Hassim (supra) has
been
violated
is
also
misconceived
because
that
judgment
was
already
referred to Larger Bench in the case of
Dharmendra @ Bhima and another vs
State of U.P. and four others in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No.1049 of 2024 vide
order dated 04.03.2024.

5.

Considering
the
rival
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of record, following two
questions arise for determination of this
case;

 (i) Which offences are covered
under the proviso of Rule 4(2) of the
Gangster Rules, 2021.
10 All. Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293
 (ii) Whether the guidelines issued
in Asim @ Hassim (supra) is still valid
despite the reference of the same to the
Larger Bench in the case of Dharmendra
@ Bhima (supra).

6. For determination of the first
question, it would be apposite to mention
Rule 4 of the Gangster Rules, which is
being quoted as under;

 4. Presence at the scene of
incident or direct participation in the
incident not necessary.- (1) Presence at the
scene of incident or direct participation in the
incident is not necessary: For committing the
criminal act defined in clause (b) of Section 2
of the Act, if any person organizes the whole
gang or abets or aids the gang leader or
member of that gang or provides protection
and shelter to any such person, with the
knowledge that the person in question is a
gang leader or member of a gang or involved
in committing/aiding/ abetting a criminal act,
before or after the commission of such
activity, then such a person shall also be
liable under the provisions of the Act even
though the whole gang had not participated
in the incident at the time of commission of
the said incident or was not present at the
scene of the incident.

 (2) It is not necessary to commit
any offence together: For a person to be a
member of a gang under the Act, it is not
necessary for him to have committed any
offence together with all the members of the
said gang. If a member of that gang has
committed any offence which comes within
the purview of the Act, along with any other
member or gang leader, they may be
presumed to be a gang:

 Provided that no such person
shall be included in gang who has
committed a few offences, which do not
come within the purview of the Act, along
with a member three years or earlier.

 (3)
Subsequent
Prosecution
Sanction: If the evidence collected during
the investigation also reveals evidence
regarding the involvement of any person in
the gang against whom the gang-chart is
not approved, then the charge-sheet can be
sent to the Special Court after obtaining
prosecution sanction from the concerned
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/Superintendent of Police.

7. Rule 4(2) of the Gangster Rules
provides that if a member of a gang
committed an offence which comes within
the purview of Gangster Act, 1986 along
with any other member or gang leader that
may be presumed to be a gang. Therefore,
even if all the members have not committed
offence together but a member can still be a
person presumed to be a member of a gang,
if he committed an offence along with other
members, or gang leader. But the proviso
of Rule 4(2) provides that if any person has
committed any offence which does not
come within the purview of the Gangster
Act along with a member of a gang during
the last three years or earlier then that
person cannot be included in the gang.
Therefore, for the applicability of proviso
of Rule 4 (2) of the Gangster Rules, it is
necessary that offence, committed by a
person, even if, with a member of a gang
three years or earlier, should not come
within the purview of Gangster Act and
if that offence comes within the purview of
the Gangster Act and the bar of nominating
a person as member of gang despite the fact
that he has not committed any offence
during last three years, will not be
applicable.
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Now a question also arises
which offence would come within the
purview of the Gangster Act, 1986.

9. To decide the issue, it would be
relevant to consider the definition of 'gang'
as per Section 2(b) of Gangster Act. Rule 3
of the Gangster Rules prescribes the
conditions for the punishment under the
Gangster Act for the offence mentioned in
Sub-clause (i) to (xxv) of Clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Gangster Act. Rule 6 of the
Gangster Rules which provides that for
preparing the gang chart alleged act of a
gang falls within the preview of the
Gangster Act. Section 2(b) of Gangster
Act is being quoted as under;

 "2. Definitions. In the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
And
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986-

 (a) "Code" -------------------.

 (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 antisocial 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
10 All. Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
295
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
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.

10. Rules 3 and 6 of the Gangster
Rules are being quoted as under;

"3.
Conditions
of
criminal liability.- (1) The offences
mentioned in sub sections (i) to
(xxv) of clause (b) of Section 2 of
the Act shall be punishable under
the Act only if they are :

(a)
committed
for
disturbing public order; or

(b)
committed
by
causing violence or threat or
display
of
violence,
or
by
intimidation,
or
coercion
or
otherwise,
either
singly
or
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
collectively, for the purpose of
obtaining
any
unfair
worldly,
economic, material, pecuniary or
other advantage to himself or to
any other person.

6. Relevant provision
of the Act to be specifically
mentioned.- (1) While preparing
the gang-chart, it shall be clearly
mentioned if the alleged act of
gang falls within the purview of
clause (b) of section 2 of the Act
along with the relevant provision.

(2) If the Investigating
Officer makes an endorsement to
the effect that the accused is
causing panic, alarm or terror in
public, then evidence shall be
collected in this regard.

11. From the definition of
gang under Section 2(b) of the
Gangster Act, it is clear that merely
becoming a member of a gang will
not be punishable unless the gang
falls within the purview of Section
2(b) of Gangster Act and for the
punishment of the member or
organizer or leader of a gang under
the
Gangster
Act,
conditions
mentioned in Rule 3 must be
fulfilled, which prescribes that
offence mentioned in Sub-section
(i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the
Gangster Act must be committed
for disturbing public order or
committed by causing violence or
threat or coercion or otherwise for
the purpose of obtaining unfair
trustworthy, pecuniary, economic,
material
or
other
advantage.
Therefore, merely because a person
has
committed
any
offence
mentioned in Sub-section (i) to
(xxv) of sub-section (b) of Section
2 of the Gangster Act will not itself
come within the purview of the
Gangster Act unless he is member
of a gang falling under Section 2(b)
of Gangster Act.

12. Even the Rule 4(2) of
the Gangster Rules itself provides
that, if a member of a gang has
committed
any
offence
which
comes within the purview of the
Act along with any other members
then he will be presumed to be a
gang.
Therefore,
punishing
a
person under the Gangster Act
basic condition to be a member of a
gang under Section 2(b) of the
Gangster Act must be satisfied

13. Rule 6 of the Gangster
Rules also provides that at the time
of preparation of gang chart, it
must be mentioned that act of gang
falls within the purview of Section
2(b)
of
the
Gangster
Act.
Therefore, it is clear that for bringing
an offence within the purview of
Gangster Act, it must be committed
by a member of a gang for the object
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the
Gangster Act by doing the activities
mentioned in Sub-Section (i) to
(xxv) of Clause (b) of Section 2 of
the Gangster Act. Therefore, if any
offence is committed whether the
same falls within the category of
Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Section
2(b) of the Gangster Act or not,
that will not come within the
purview of the Gangster Act
unless the same is done with the
object mentioned in Section 2(b) of
the Gangster Act.
10 All. Sukarmpal @ Amit Jat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
297
14. The Full Bench of
Allahabad High Court in Ashok
Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P.;
1987 SCC Online All 203 also
observed in paragraph 15 that a
person is not liable to be punished
under Gangster Act merely because
he happens to be a member of
group unless he chooses to join a
group which indulges in anti-social
activities
defined
under
the
Gangster Act with the use of force
or otherwise for gaining material
advantage to himself or other
person. Again in paragraph 73 of
the aforesaid judgement, the Full
Bench observed that for booking a
person under the provisions of
Gangster Act, the authority has to
be
satisfied
and
there
is
a
reasonable
and
proximate
connection between the occurrence
and the activity of the person and
such activities were, to achieve
undue
temporal,
physical,
economic
or
other
advantage.
Paragraph nos.15 and 73 of the
aforesaid judgement are being
quoted as under;

"15.
For
the
same
reason, the submission of Sri
Rakesh Dwivedi (discussed later)
to the effect that the Act attempts to
punish a mere status of a person
without there being any actus reus
has to be rejected. A person is not
liable to be punished under the Act
merely because he happens to be a
member of a group. He comes
within the clutches of the Act only
if he chooses to join a group which
indulges in anti-social activities
defined under the Act with use of
force
for
gaining
material
advantage to himself or any other
person. The element of actus reus
is hence clearly present in the
offence created under the statute.
We will discuss this aspect of the
case in greater depth later in this
judgment.

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."

15. Rules under Section 23
of the Gangster Act were framed
for carrying out the purposes of
this Act. Therefore, the rules must
be interpreted in consonance with
the object of the Gangster Act. The
object and reason of the Gangster
Act are quoted as under;
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Object and reason of
the Act- Gangsterism and antisocial activities influenced the
State
Legislature
in
making
introduction of such Act. The
object and reason of the Act is that
gangsterism
and
anti-social
activities were on the increase in
the state posing threat to lives and
properties of the citizens. The
existing measures were not found
effective enough to cope with new
menace. With a view to break the
gangs by punishing the gangsters
and to nip in the bud their
conspirational
designs
it
was
considered necessary to make
special provision for the prevention
of and for coping with gangsters
and anti-social activities in the
State."

16. In the case of State of
U.P. vs Babu Ram; 1961 SC 751,
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
that the Rules made under the
statute are treated for the purpose
of construction as if they were in
the enabling Act and are to be of
the same effect as if contained in
the Act.

17. In 9th edition of G.P.
Singh's Principles of Statutory
Interpretation, on page 78, it is
observed that "the words of a
statute are first understood in their
natural, ordinary or popular sense
and phrases and sentences are
construed
according
to
their
grammatical meaning, unless that
leads to some absurdity or unless
there is something in the context,
or in the object of the statute to
suggest the contrary". Therefore,
the proviso of Rule 4 of Gangster
Rules is to be interpreted as per the
object of the Gangster Act and
meaning of any words should be
assigned the same meaning as it is
made under the Gangster Act.

18. From the above
analysis, it is clear that bar of
proviso of Rule 4(2) of Gangster
Rules, 2021 will apply only in those
cases where the offences were
committed three year or earlier
from the date of preparation of
gang chart and these offences do
not come within the purview of
Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act as
well as under Rule 3 of the
Gangster Rules, even though those
offences may fall within the
category of activities mentioned in
Sections (i) to (xxv) of Clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Gangster Act.

19. So far as the second
question is concerned regarding the
reference of judgement of Asim @
Hassim (supra) to a larger Bench
of
Dharmendra
@
Bhima
(supra), the law is well settled that
mere reference to a Larger Bench
will not dilute the proposition laid
down by the judgement referred,
therefore, guidelines issued in the
case of Asim @ Hassim (supra)
that FIR registered u/s 3(1) of the
Gangster Act without mentioning
corresponding provisions of Section
2(b) of the Gangster Act, based on
which, he was named as gangster is
illegal, is still holds good till the
reference is decided. For ready
reference, para 9 of Asim @ Hassim
(supra) case is being quoted as
under:
10 All. Vinod Kumar Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
299

"9. In the present case,
the impugned F.I.R. was registered
u/s 3(1) Gangsters Act, without
mentioning
the
corresponding
provision, mentioning the anti
social activities in which the
accused is involved and on the
basis of which he was named as
gangster. A person cannot be
punished without specifying the
offence committed by him which
would justify his classification as a
Gangster."

20. In the present case, the
base case was registered under
Sections 60/63 the Excise Act and
Sections 419, 420, 307, 467, 468,
471 IPC in which charge-sheet was
filed on 14.02.2020 and there was
no material to show that base case,
in the present case, comes within
the purview of the Gangster Act
though the same is punishable
under the Excise Act as well as IPC
and the charge sheet was filed more
than three years back, therefore,
bar of proviso of Rule 4(2) of the
Gangster Rules is applicable and
the petitioner cannot be named as a
member of a gang on the basis of
base case mentioned in the gang
chart in which charge-sheet has
been filed.

21.

However,
it
is
observed that if an earlier occasion
the Gangster Act was imposed
against a person and charge-sheet
was filed then any subsequent
illegal activities falling within Subsection (i) to (xxv) of Clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Gangster Act
would come within the purview of
the Gangster Act, if there is other
supporting material regarding his
involvement in the activities of a
gang and in that case the Gangster
Act can be imposed, even after
three years.

22. The impugned FIR is
registered u/s 3(1) of the Gangster
Act
without
mentioning
the
corresponding provision of Section
2(b) of the Gangster Act, therefore,
the same is illegal in view of the
law laid down in the case of Asim
@ Hassim (supra)

23. In view of the above,
the present petition is allowed and
the FIR dated 29.02.2024 along
with its gang-chart is hereby
quashed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 299
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2998 of 2023

Vinod Kumar Shukla & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish, Sri Ayush Mishra,
Sri Nitin Sharma, Sri Prabha Shanker
Mishra, Sri Ram Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ram Sajiwan Mishra, Sri Tarun
Kumar Shukla

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
397/401-