# Vishal (Minor) v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1383 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-04-13 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4451 of 2023 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishal-minor-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50184 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) - Quashing of FIR - Age of petitioner was more than 16 years on the date of incident, but as the two base cases shown against the petitioner in gang chart do not come within the category of cases described under Rules 22 (2), 27 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - As the said cases in the impugned gang chart are under Sections 379, 380 and 411 IPC, therefore, no action can be taken against him under the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Hence, direction to police authorities to delete the name of petitioner from gang chart. (Para 9, 10) Writ Petitions Allowed. (E-13) ## Text 5 All. Vishal (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. 1383 well as all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. ---------- (2023) 5 ILRA 1383 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4451 of 2023 Vishal (Minor) ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Balram Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) - Quashing of FIR - Age of petitioner was more than 16 years on the date of incident, but as the two base cases shown against the petitioner in gang chart do not come within the category of cases described under Rules 22 (2), 27 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - As the said cases in the impugned gang chart are under Sections 379, 380 and 411 IPC, therefore, no action can be taken against him under the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Hence, direction to police authorities to delete the name of petitioner from gang chart. (Para 9, 10) Writ Petitions Allowed. (E-13) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the First Information Report dated 30.07.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 244 of 2022 under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationMaholi, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence in regard to two base cases shown in the gang chart and has been falsely implicated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The details of criminal activities/base cases shown in the gang chart dated 24.07.2022 are as follows: I. Case Crime No. 180 of 2022 under Section 379 IPC, Police StationMaholi, District- Sant Kabir Nagar. II. Case Crime No. 188 of 2022, under Sections 380, 411 IPC, Police Station-Maholi, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. 4. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has already been released on bail in Case Crime No. 180 of 2022 on 23.06.2022 and has been declared juvenile vide order dated 07.12.2022. The petitioner has also been released on bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2022 on 23.06.2022. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner was minor when the impugned FIR was registered, therefore, he cannot be booked under the said Act. 1384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 5. As per the High School Marksheet (Annexure ?3? to the writ petition), the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 09.10.2005 and on the date of incident his age was about 17 years and 21 days as per impugned FIR and was minor, therefore, cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters Act. It was further asserted that a ?minor? does not come within the purview of the word ?Person?. The word ?Person? does not include a child below 18 years of age, hence cannot be prosecuted. 6. Per contra, learned AGA for the State referred to the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code defining the word ?Person? which reads as follows- The word ?Person? includes any company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not. 7. However, after hearing both the parties, it is relevant to refer to Rule 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which reads as follows:- ?27. Act not applicable to minor generally:- If the accused are minors and their age is less than 18 years, then they should not be included in the gang chart:- Provided that if the act of a juvenile falls under the category of offences mentioned in Rule 22 and his age is more than 16 years, then action can be taken against him under the relevant provisions of the Act, subject to the decison of the District Level Supervision Committee mentioned in Rule 64.? 8. Rule 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which is also relevant reads as follows:- ?22. Criminal history not mandatory and sections of the Act can be imposed in the course of investigation:- 1. A single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act, the First Information Report may be registered on the basis of a single case i.e., it is not mandatory that any criminal history must be recorded and alleged before registering an offence under the Act. 2. The Act may also come into force on a single prosecution in certain class of cases, such as- if it appears that the gang has committed a single offence mentioned in Sections 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397 of the Penal Code out of the offences mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act or sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v), (vii), (x), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx) or (xxi) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, which is presently under investigation, and the offence under this Act is being proved by collected evidence, then along with the criminal act under consideration, the gangchart should also be approved by the concerned Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate involved in the investigation of the said offence and the provisions of the Act can be imposed while investigating both the offences together in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, the charge-sheet can be sent to the Special Court constituted under the Act.? 9. Thus, from the facts and circumstances as contended above and the proviso to Rule 27, it is obvious that the age of the petitioner was more than 16 years on the date of the incident, but as the base cases shown against the petitioner in the gang chart do not come within the category of cases described under Rule 22 5 All. Dinesh Babu Vs. Manager, M/s Kandia Transport Co., Jamshedpur & Anr. 1385 Sub Rule (2) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, therefore, no action can be taken. As the two base cases shown against the petitioner in the impugned gang chart are under Sections 379, 380 and 411 IPC, therefore, no action can be taken against him under the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances we, hereby direct the Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir Nagar to ensure that the name of the petitioner be deleted from the gang chart and the petitioner be not prosecuted in pursuance of the impugned FIR dated 30.07.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 244 of 2022 under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationMaholi, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. 11. The writ petition is allowed only in respect to the petitioner. However, the investigation as against the co-accused shall proceed in accordance with law. 12. Let the copy of this order be provided to the learned AGA for necessary compliance. ---------- (2023) 5 ILRA 1385 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 200 of 1996 Dinesh Babu ...Applicant Versus Manager, M/s Kandia Transport Co., Jamshedpur & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicant: Sri B.R. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.A. Khan Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim-Accident and negligence not in dispute-nor liability is challenged-quantum disputed-injured was 15 years old student-Tribunal considered his income to be Nil-income with potential to earn be Rs.1500/- per month-50% of income towards disability-medical expene and amount under pain, shock and sufferings is granted-Rate of interest-7.5%. Appeal partly allowed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: 1. Sanjay Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar & anr., (2014) 5 SCC 330; 2. Syed. Sadiq & ors. Vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735; 3. V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi & anr., (2014) 11 SCC 178; 4. Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011. 5. Hari Babu Vs Amrit Lal & ors., 2019 (2) T.A.C. 718 (All.). 6. Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725 7. A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal, Reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442 8. Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 9. Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001-Smt. Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr. 10. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors.