# Vinay Parmar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6174 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinay-parmar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50684
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 154- of Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 2/3(1)-
Quashing of first information report-
violation of Rule 16(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as the
District Magistrate has granted approval
to the gang chart mindlessly without
proper perusal of the facts and Such
violation
vitiates
the
impugned
first
information report-Held, the allegation in
the base case is of transportation of the
minerals and the same is necessarily for
pecuniary advantage-The petitioners are
therefore, fully covered by the definition
of the word chart in Section 2(b) of the
Act-The
First
Information
Report
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, cannot be quashed.(Para 1 to
17)

B. The definition of a gang as provided
under
Section
2(b),
which
includes
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. (para 9 to 12)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

8 All. Vinay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
505
period of moratorium in view of the
provisions of the IBC.

25. In a given case it may happen
that a person who has applied under the
Scheme and who was supposed to make
payment on or before 30.06.2020, became
seriously ill on 29.06.2020 and there was
nobody to look after his affairs and
therefore he could not deposit the amount;
such inability was beyond his control and
thereafter, immediately on getting out of
sickness he tried to deposit the amount
and/or approached the Court - can the
Court close its eyes and say that though
there may be valid reasons and/or causes
for that person's inability to make the
payment, still no relief can be granted to
him? There may be extra ordinary cases
which are required to be considered on
facts of each case. The Courts are meant to
do justice and cannot compel a person to
do something which was impossible for him
to do. "

13. While in the judgement of M/s
Ken Computek Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated
Committee (SVLDRS) and others, passed
in SLP (C) No. 2116 of 2023, the Apex
Court did not consider the issue of
condoning the delay in extraordinary
circumstances but only observed that
benefit of scheme cannot be extended from
the time prescribed under the scheme.

14. In view of the law mentioned
above, as well as considering the pleadings
and perusal of record, this Court is of the
view that a delay of three days in
depositing the arrears of tax of Rs.
8,67,137/- deserves to be condoned, and the
amount balance tax deposited by the
petitioner be accepted by the respondents
treating the same well within time as per
the scheme of Act, 2020 and also the
impugned order /letter dated 25.8.2022,
passed by Central Board of Direct Tax, is
hereby quashed.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6174 of 2023
With other connected cases

Vinay Parmar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sri Dilip Kumar
Goswami, Sri N.I. Jafri (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 154- of Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 2/3(1)-
Quashing of first information report-
violation of Rule 16(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as the
District Magistrate has granted approval
to the gang chart mindlessly without
proper perusal of the facts and Such
violation
vitiates
the
impugned
first
information report-Held, the allegation in
the base case is of transportation of the
minerals and the same is necessarily for
pecuniary advantage-The petitioners are
therefore, fully covered by the definition
of the word chart in Section 2(b) of the
Act-The
First
Information
Report
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, cannot be quashed.(Para 1 to
17)

B. The definition of a gang as provided
under
Section
2(b),
which
includes
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. (para 9 to 12)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.)

1. All these writ petitions involve an
identical question and therefore they have
been heard and are being decided by a
common order.

2. Heard Shri N.I Jafri, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioners and learned
AGA for the State-respondents.

3. Writ Petition No.6174 of 2023 seeks
quashing of the first information report dated
28.03.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.76
of 2023 seeks quashing of the first
information reports dated 25.03.2023, under
Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021, Police Station Saiyan, District Agr and
Writ Petition Nos.5725 of 2023, 5373 of
2023, 5502 of 2023 and 5947 of 2923 seeks
quashing of the first information reports dated
25.03.2023, under Section 2/3(1) of Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Kotwali, District Ballia.

4. The contention of counsel for the
petitioners is that there is violation of Rule
16(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 as the District Magistrate has granted
approval to the gang chart mindlessly
without proper perusal of the facts. Such
violation
vitiates
the
impugned
first
information report.

5. The next contention is that the
petitioners do not constitute a gang as they
are not covered by the definition of the
gang as provided under Section 2(b) of the
Act.

6. It is next submitted that a dumper
belonging to the petitioner no.3 was seized
at Saiyan Toll Plaza by the Toll Barrier
Staff and the police during checking as is
alleged in the first information report in the
base case. The dumper was over-loaded
with mineral dust. It was being driven by
Achal Singh and his co-driver was B.S.
Parmar. The truck was owned by Amit
Mittal and that there is no documentation
regarding
a
sand
stone
dust
being
transported. The number plate had been
blackened to hide the registration number.
It was also alleged that the driver was in
constant touch with the owner of the
dumper through a whatsapp group whose
admins are petitioner nos.1 and 3.

7. It is next contended that the
impugned First Information Report under
the Gangsters Act is malicious prosecution
as the police has not been able to collect
any material during investigation of the
base case to justify invocation of the
provisions of the Gangsters Act against the
petitioners. There is no independent witness
of the alleged seizure. The vehicle has in
any case being released in favour of the
petitioner no.3. The minerals being loaded
in the dumper was being transported with a
valid pass for the same and the royalty of
these minerals had been duly paid.
8 All. Vinay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
507

8. It is lastly contended that since the
mineral and sand were loaded on the
dumper, the same flow out obscured the
number plate and had not been obfuscated
deliberately.

9. Learned AGA has refuted the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners and has submitted that the
petitioners fall within the definition of a
gang as provided under Section 2(b), which
includes 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.

10. It is submitted that the allegation
in the base case is of transportation of the
minerals and the same is necessarily for
pecuniary advantage.The petitioners are
therefore, fully covered by the definition of
the word chart in Section 2(b) of the Act.
The First Information Report therefore,
cannot be quashed.

11.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.

12. We have substance in the
submission of learned AGA that any illegal
transportation of minerals would entail undue
pecuniary or material or other advantage to
the persons responsible for the transportation
and therefore, the petitioners are covered by
definition of the word gang in Section 2(b) of
the Act. This is so because the word "Gang"
means a group of persons, who act singly or
collectively, by violence, or threat or show of
violence, or intimidation, or coercion. These
terms are not exclusive. The relevant word
for the purposes of this writ petition occurring
in Section 2(b) is the 'word otherwise'.
Therefore, if pecuniary or material advantage
is sought to be obtained, it is not necessarily
required to be by violence, or threat or show
of violence, or intimidation, or coercion,
alone. The aforenoted words are qualified by
the
word
'otherwise'
and
therefore
violence,threat
or
show
of
violence,
intimidation an coercion alone are the
necessary
ingredients
either
singly
or
collectively. Any other manner of disturbing
public order of gaining undue material or
pecuniary advantage would also bring it
within the definition of a 'gang' due to the use
of the word 'otherwise' in Section 2(b) of the
Act. Therefore, the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners in this regard is not
liable to be accepted.

13. In so far as, the other submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioners
are concerned, they are in our considered
opinion are the defence of the petitioners,
which cannot be looked into while dealing
with a writ petition seeking quashing of the
first information report.

14. The submission that approval has
been granted to the gang chart by the District
Magistrate mindlessly and without proper
perusal of the documents accompanying it
also does not impress this Court.

15. Perusal of the gang chart reveals
that
it
has
been
approved
by
the
Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate,
Agra, who is authorized to approve the
same. The submission that such approval
has been granted without perusal of the
requisite documents is an assertion and
without any basis and therefore, cannot be
accepted.

16. Since, the submissions of counsel
for the petitioners do not find favour of this
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court and since the allegations in the first
information report constitute a cognizable
offence, the same cannot be quashed.

17. Accordingly, these writ petitions
fail and are hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 508
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7948 of 2005

Smt. Zahida Anjum ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rishikesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Sri A.R. Dwivedi, Sri
Manish Dwivedi, Sri Prabhakar Tripathi

Criminal
Law
-
Constitution
of
Indian,1950 - Article 141, 142, 226 & 227
- Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections
125 & 482 - Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 - Section 3
- Petition filed by Wife - challenging the
impugned order passed in Revision as well as
for enhancement of maintenance u/section 125
Cr.P.C. - petitioner-wife was never divorced -
seeking maintenance from her husband - filed
application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. - Trial court allowed
application to pay Rs. 1500/- p.m. - two
revision petitions filed - one by husband for setaside & anr.by wife for enhancement of
maintenance - both Revision was decided by a
common judgment - revisional court allowed
the revision filed by husband & rejected the
revision filed by wife - Plea of divorce taken by
husband - court finds that, husband's claim of
pronouncing triple Talaaq must be proven and
that, irrespective of the claim, a wife retains the
right
to
maintenance
until
remarriage
-
judgment of the revisional court flawed and
directs a prompt reassessment of the wife's
maintenance claim, ensuring justice is served -
Held, - (i) Court of a firm view that judgement
passed by revisional court in Criminal Revision
filed by husband was bad in law and is therefore
liable to be set-aside - (ii) and issue of
enhancement of maintenance amount as was
claimed by wife in Criminal Revision opens up -
Hence, concerned court is directed to decide the
same as per law within a period of three months
from date of filing of certified copy of this
judgment - Petition allowed. (Para - 23, 24, 25)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shamim Ara Vs St. of U.P., 2002 Crl.L.J. 4726

2. Shabana Bano Vs Imran Khan, 2009 AIR SCW
7490

3. Shayara Bano Vs U.O.I., Writ Petition No.118
of 2016

4. Radhey Shyam & anr.Vs Chhabi Nath & ors.,
(2015) 5 SCC 423

5. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & anr.Vs Special Judge
Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749

6. Saheda Khatoon Vs Gholam Sarwar, 2002
Cri.L.J. 4150

7. Danial Latifi & anr.Vs U.O.I., 2001 AIR SCW
3932

8. Major General A.S. Gauraya & anr.Vs S.N.
Thakur & anr., (1986) 2 SCC 709

9. Shenoy and Co. Vs Commercial Tax Officer,
[1985] (2) S.C.C. 512

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Manish Dwivedi, learned counsel for