Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 860 (ALL)

Arjun v. State of U. P.

2021-08-12

SHAMIM AHMED, SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2021
JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. 2. This batch of writ petitions were finally heard at length with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties as noted in the order dated 19.02.2021. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1986’) and the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the following questions are framed for determination:- “(i) Whether on a solitary criminal case registered against the petitioners, a case under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1986") can be registered ? (ii) If the answer to the question no.(i) is in affirmative, then whether the impugned First Information Report registered under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986, deserves to be quashed ?” Facts:- 4. The basis for registering first information reports against the petitioners are given in the impugned first information reports. Therefore, for ready reference, the first information reports under challenge in each of the present writ petitions, are reproduced below:- “(A) CRIMINAL MISC. The basis for registering first information reports against the petitioners are given in the impugned first information reports. Therefore, for ready reference, the first information reports under challenge in each of the present writ petitions, are reproduced below:- “(A) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 642 of 2021 The First Information Report No.442/2020, dated 13.12.2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar:- ^^lwpuk tqckuh oknh & ÁHkkjh fujh{kd Jh MhŒdsŒ R;kxh & eSa ÁHkkjh fujh{kd MhŒdsŒ R;kxh e; gejkg dkŒ 316 jkgqy dqekj e; 01 tjc iEi ,D'ku xu e; 10 dkjrwl 12 cksj e; 01 Vh;j xSl eu e; 08 lSy Vh;j xSl e; ljdkjh cqysjks ;wih&12 ,Tkh&0415 e; pkyd dkŒ 590 ;'kiky e; ,d tjc fiLVy e; 10 dkjrwl ds jokuk 'kqnk jrk jiV jksŒ vke rkjh[kh bejkstk ls okn ns[kjs[k 'kkfUr O;oLFkk x'r] pSfdax lafnX/k O;fDr@okgu o rkyk'k okafNr vfHkŒ x.k foospuk eqdnek ejtqvkr o okyk & okyk Jheku ftyk eftLVªsV eqtQjuxj egksn; dk;kZy; ls vuqeksfnr 'kqnk xSaxpkVZ xSaxyhMj tksuh mQZ 'kqHke o vtqZu vkfn dk ÁkIr dj okil Fkkuk vk;kA pktZ Fkkuk lqiqnZ [kqn fy;k deZŒ x.k dk gokys 'kqnk vLykg cknLrwj jgkA vafdr fd;k fd xSax pkVZ esa ¼1½ tksuh mQZ 'kqHke iq= jkds'k fuoklh lqugsMh [kM[kMh pqfM;kyk dLck o Fkkuk xkxygsMh tuin lgkjuiqj mez 25 o"kZ vkijkf/kd bfrgkl & eqŒvŒla 247@2020 /kkjk 392] 411 HkkŒnŒfoŒ o pktZ 'khV uEcj 221@2020 fnukafdr 13-9-2020 Fkkuk flŒykŒ eqtQuxj eqŒvŒlaŒ 249@2020 /kkjk 307 HkkŒnŒfoŒ pktZ lhV uEcj 341@2020 fnukafdr 07-10-2020 Fkkuk flŒykŒ eqŒ uxj ¼2½ vtZqu iq= uksjrks flag fuoklh gfjuxj Fkkuk iqjdkth tuin & eqŒ uxj mez 23 o"kZ vkijkf/kd bfrgkl & eqŒvŒlaŒ 247@2020 /kkjk 392] 411 HkkŒnŒfoŒ pktZ lhV uEcj 221@2020 fnukafdr 13-9-2020 Fkkuk flŒykŒ eqtQjuxj lfØ; lnL; gS vius xSax ds lkFk vius futh vkfFkZd ,oa HkkSfrd ykHk ds fy, mijksDr vijk/k dkkfjr djrs gS budk ;g d`R; 2¼1½ ,oa 3 mŒÁŒ fxjksgcUn vf/kŒ ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki 1986 ds varxZr ifjHkkf"kr gS vfHk;qDr x.k dk turk esa bruk Hk; o vkard O;kIr gS fd buds fo:} dksbZ Hkh O;fDr xokgh nsus rFkk fjiksVZ fy[kkus ds fy, rS;kj ugha gSA mijksDr vfHkŒ x.kksa dk lekt esa LoPNUn jguk tufgr esa ugha gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.kksa ds fo:} /kkjk 2¼1½ ,oa 3 mŒÁŒ fxjksgcUn vf/kŒ ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki 1986 dk vfHk;ksx iathd`r djkrk gawA uksV% c;ku tqckuh tks cksyk gS dkŒ 771 mes'k uk;d }kjk ogha 'kCn o 'kCn VkbZi fd;k x;k gSA gLrk{kj cukrk gawA** (B) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 798 of 2021 The First Information Report No.0728/2020, dated 07.11.2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra:- ^^udy rgjhj fgUnh oknh Á/kku ys[kd Fkkuk jkcVZxat lksuHkæ vkt fnukad 07-11-2020 dks eSa ÁHkkjh fujh{kd e; gejkg dkŒ jfodkUr ljkst] dkŒ les'k ;kno e; ljdkjh okgu ;wih&64 th&0389 pkyd ,pŒ,eŒ jfoUæ ukFk feJ ds jokuk 'kqnk ns[kHkky {ks= 'kkfUr O;oLFkk fM;wVh dkfEcax Fkkuk {ks= ls ckyk ckyk ftyk eftLVsªV dk;kZy; lksuHkæ ls iwoZ esa vuqeksfnr 'kqnk xSax pkVZ xSax yhMj fojsUæ Árki flag mQZ oh: iq= lquhy flag fuoklh uqukSVh Fkkuk dksrokyh pqukj tuin fetkZij dk ÁkIr dj ckn voyksdu {ks= esa Hkze.k'khy jgdj tkudkjh dj rFkk Fkkuk LFkkuh; ds vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Kkr gqvk fd xSaax yhVj fojsUæ Árki flag mQZ oh: iq= lquhy flag fuŒ uqukSVh iksŒ rsUnqvk dyk Fkkuk dksrokyh pqukj fetkZij dk ,d laxfBr fxjksg gSA bl xSax ds lnL; Áeksn flag iq= ujsUæ flag fuŒ ikih Fkkuk djek tuin lksuHkæ gŒ irk tulksij Fkkuk 'kkgxat tuin lksuHkæ] /kjsUæ Árki flag mQZ /kh: flag iq= lquhy flag fuŒ uqukSVh Fkkuk pqukj tuin fetkZiqj bl xSax ds lnL;ksa }kjk vius vkfFkZd ,oa HkkSfrd ykHk gsrq HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds v/;k; 16 ,oa 22 of.kZr vijk/kksa dks dkfjr djds lekt esa Hk; ,oa vkrad iSnk djds vius fxjksg ds lnL;ksa ds fy, vkfFkZd ,oa HkkSfrd YkkHk gsrq /kuksiktZu djrs gq, buds xSax ds Hk; ls turk ds yksx buds fo:} vfHk;ksx o xokgh djkus ls Mjrs gSA ftlls turk esa dkQh Hk; O;kIr gSA ;g xSax dkQh euc<+ o 'kkrhj gSA mijksDr xSax ds lnL;ksa ds fo:} dbZ vfHk;ksx iathd`r gS ftuesa vkjksi i= ekuuh; U;k;ky; Ásf"kr fd;s tk pqds gSA xSax yhVj fojsUæ Árki flag mQZ oh: o mlds xSax ds lnL; Áeksn flag] ydh flag mQZ vkyksd flag] /khjsUæ Árki flag mQZ /kh: flag mijksDr dk dk;Z vUrxZr /kkjk 3¼1½ mŒÁŒ fxjksg cUn ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1986 ds rgr vfHk;ksx iathd`r djsaA gŒ vaxzsth viBuh; ,lŒ,pŒvksŒ 7-11-2020 ¼vatuh dqekj jk;½ ÁHkkjh fujh{kd dksrokyh jkcVZxat tuin lksuHkæ fnukad 07-11-2020A uksV% eSa dkŒeqŒ vuqi dqekj Bkdqj Áekf.kr djrk gaw fd fpd dh rgjhj dks v{kj'k% cksy cksy dj dŒ vkiŒ lq'khy dqekj ls dEI;wVj ij fdrk djk;k x;kA** (C) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17198 of 2020 The First Information Report No.1260/2020, dated 18.08.2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar:- ^^lwpuk oknh tqckuh fnukad 17-08-2020 dks eSa ÁHkkjh fujh{kd vt; lsB e; gejkg o dkŒ 1392 vfHk"ksd dqekj dks o dkŒ 2769 eukst dqekj e; thi ljdkjh ;wih&70 ,th&3269 pkyd gsŒ dkŒ jktohj ds jokuk gksdj pSafdx lafnX/k O;fDr@okgu@oLrq ryk'k okafNr vijk/kh pSafdx lafnX/k O;fDr@okgu ns[kjs[k {ks= jksdFkke tqeZ tjk;e cSad psfdax o isf.Max foospuk vgdker o 14 ukdk@cSfj;j dks pSd fd;k x;kA rFkk turk ds O;fDr;ksa dks dksjksuk ok;jl dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vfHk;qDrksa dks lqjkxjlh irkjlh djrs gq;s ckyk ckyk ,d fdrk vuqeksfnr 'kqnk [kkdk xSax pkVZ ftykf/kdkjh egksn; dk;kZy; ls ÁkIr 'kqnk vUrxZr /kkjk 3¼1½ xSaxLVj ,DV o nhxj Ái= nkf[ky fd;k fooj.k dk;Z ljdkj bl Ádkj gSA fd esa ,lŒ,pŒvksŒ e; gejkgh QkslZ ds {ks= esa ekewj@Hkze.k ls Kkr gqvk fd xSax yhMj ¼1½ bljr lTtkn iq= LoŒ lTtkn vgen mez 51 o"kZ fuŒ ,&604] 6&yksj f'kykfyd fery vV~Vfydk fofYMax foBwj jksM dY;kuiqj dkuiqj uxj gky irk 88@15 peuxat dkuiqj uxj lnL; ¼2½ eksgEen blgkd iq= eklwd vyh mez 50 o"kZ fuŒ 101 duZyxat Fkkuk duZyxat dkuiqj uxj ¼3½ eksŒ tQj iq= LoŒ vCnqy len mez 52 o"kZ fuŒ ,p&301 pUæ uxj Fkkuk pdsjh dkuiqj uxj ¼4½ glhu iq= v;wo [kku fuŒ 97@311 jsMhesUV ekfdZV osduxat Fkkuk osduxat dkuiqj uxj mez 38 o"kZ ¼5½ fj;ktqn~nhu iq= u'kh:n~nhu fuŒ 95@26 isp okx djkZl[kkuk ykyk dEikmUM osduxat dkuiqj uxj mez 45 o"kZ ¼6½ u'khe v[rj iq= LoŒ dtyw jgeku fuŒ 128 iks[kj iqj tkteÅ ykx oaxyk Fkkuk pdsjh dkuiqj uxj mez 51 o"kZ ¼7½ vdhy vgen iq= eqjlyhu vgen fuŒ ,yŒvkbZŒthŒ 95 dsŒMhŒ,Œ dkyksuh tkteÅ Fkkuk pdsjh dkuiqj mez 43 o"kZ ¼8½ vCnqy dkfnj iq= vCnqy lyke fuŒ 452 eksrh uxj tkteÅ Fkkuk pdsjh dkuiqj uxj mez 36 o"kZ ¼9½ futkeqy glu iq= LoŒ fljktqy glu fuŒ 98@176, ukftj okx Fkkuk osduxat dkuiqj uxj mez 42 o"kZ ,d 'kkfrj fdLe ds vijk/kh gS budk ,d laxfBr fxjksg gS vius o vius xSax ds lkFkh ds lkFk vkfFkZd ,oa HkkSfrd ykHk gsrq }kjk uky ysdj rkl ds iRrksa ls :i;ksa dh gkj th dh okth yxk dj edku ds vUnj tqvk f[kyokuk mDr d`R; tSls t?kU; vijk/k dkfjr djuk budh vke lkSgjr gS ,oa ftlesa {ks= dh turk esa vlqj{kk dk ekgkSy gSA buds }kjk lekt esa bruk Hk; o vkard O;kIr gS fd lekt dk dksbZ Hkh O;fDr buds fo:} vfHk;ksx iathd`r djkus o U;k;ky; esa lk{; nsus dk lkgl ugha tqVkrk budk lekt esa LoPNan fopj.k djuk lekt ds fy, fgr esa ugha gSA xSax yhMj o mlds lkFkh /kkjk lkoZtfud /kwr vf/kfu;e 1867 esa of.kZr vijk/kksa dks djus ds vH;Lr vijk/kh gSA tks xSaxLVj dh /kkjk 2¼[k½ esa of.kZr vijk/kksa dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS buds }kjk ¼1½ eqŒvŒlaŒ 154@2020 /kkjk tqvk vf/kfu;e xSax ds yhMj o lnL; ds vijk/kksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, buds fo:} mŒÁŒ fxjksgcUn ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds /kkjk 3¼1½ ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk furkar vko';d gSA budk xSaxpkVZ rS;kj dj iwoZ esa gh Jheku ftykf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk vuqeksfnr fd;k fd;k tk pqdk gSA buds d`R;ksa ij ÁHkkoh fu;U=.k gsrq fo:} mŒÁŒ fxjksgcUn ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1986 dh /kkjk 3¼1½ dk vfHk;ksx eq>s ,lŒ,pŒvksŒ }kjk cksy cksy dj dEI;wVj ij eŒdkŒ 922 jathrk ;kno ls iathd`r djk;k x;k i<+dj ns[kk tks cksyk ogha fy[kk gSA uksV% eSa eŒdkŒ 922 jathrk ;kno Áekf.kr djrh gaw fd lwpuk tqckuh esjs }kjk 'kCn o 'kCn Vkbi dh x;hA** (D) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17194 of 2020 The First Information Report No.0293/2020, dated 25.07.2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah:- ^^udy xSax pkVZ yhMj jkgqy ;kno iq= jk/kk iq= jk/kkfd'ku ;kno fuoklh pUnsiqjk Fkkuk lSQbZ tuin bVkok ØŒlaŒ--- uke irk xSax yhMj o lnL;] eqŒvŒlaŒ 194@2020 /kkjk 394@411 HkkŒnŒfoŒ Fkkuk flfoy ykbu bVkok lhŒ,lŒ uEcj 205@2020 fnukad 26-06-2020 eqŒvŒlaŒ 198@2020 /kkjk 4@25, ,DV Fkkuk flfoy ykbu bVkok lhŒ,lŒ uEcj 147@2020 fnukad 02-05-2020] orZeku fLFkfr ¼1½ jkgqy ;kno iq= jk/kkd`".k ;kno mez djhc 25 o"kZ fuoklh pUnsiqjk Fkkuk lsQbZ] bVkok gky irk 44 oSHko fogkj dkyksuh Fkkuk QzsUMl dkyksuh bVkok & lgh] fuy] tsy ¼2½ T;ksfr ;kno iRuh vfHk"ksd ;kno mez djhc 26 o"kZ fuoklh cuh dk uxyk Fkkuk cdsoj ftyk bVkok & lgh] fuy] tsy ¼3½ equh"k dqekj ;kno iq= fouksn dqekj mez djhch 22 o"kZ fuoklh f>UVqvk Fkkuk HkFkZuk ftyk bVkok & lgh] lgh] tsy ¼4½ ique iq=h lqjsUæ flag mez djhc 25 o"kZ fuoklh vVS;k Fkkuk dqjkZ ftyk eSuiqjh gky irk & v'kksd uxj Fkkuk QzS.Ml dkyksuh bVkok lgh] fuy] tsyA Jheku Jh fuosnu gS fd jkgqy ;kno iq= jk/kkd`".k ;kno mez djhc 25 o"kZ fuoklh pUnsiqjk Fkkuk lSQbZ bVkok gky irk 44 oSHko fogkj dkyksuh Fkkuk QzS.Ml dkyksuh bVkok dk ,d fxjksg gS ftldk og Lo;a yhMj gS rFkk T;ksfr ;kno iRuh vfHk"ksd ;kno mez djhc 26 o"kZ fuoklh cuh dk uxyk Fkkuk cdsoj ftyk bVkok] equh"k dqekj ;kno iq= fouksn dqekj mez djhc 22 o"kZ fuoklh f>UVqvk Fkkuk HkFkZuk ftyk bVkok o ique iq=h lqjsUæ flag mez djhc 25 o"kZ fuoklh vVS;k Fkkuk dqjkZ ftyk eSuiqjh gky irk v'kksd uxj Fkkuk QzS.Ml dkyksuh bVkok fxjksg ds lnL; gS ftuds }kjk ekjihV dj ywVikV tSls laxhu vijk/k djus ds vH;Lr vijk/kh gSA ftuds dCts ls ywVh x;h lEifr Øe'k% jkgqy ;kno ls cjken ,d yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s o ,d vnn eksckbZy lSelax o T;ksfr ;kno ls ,d yk[k pkyhl gtkj :i;s o equh'k dqekj ls ,d yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s o iwue ls ,d yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s ywVh x;h lEifr fnukad 12-04-2020 dks cjken dh x;h rks vius os vius ifjokj ds vkfFkZd ,oa HkkSfrd ,oa cqfu;knh ykHk ÁkIr djus ds mn~ns'; ls /ku vftZr djrs gSA HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds v/;k; 16] 17 o 22 esa of.kZr vijk/kksa dks dj lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdykiksa esa lafyIr gS ftlls Fkkuk {ks= o lekt ds O;fDr;ksa ds vlarks"k gSA fxjksg ds lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdykiksa esa jksd tufgr esa yxk;k tkuk vko';d gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd fxjksg ds fo:} mŒÁŒ fxjksgcUn ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki ¼fuokj.k½ 1986 dh /kkjk 3 ds rgr dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus gsrq ÁLrqr xSax pkVZ vuqeksfnr djus dh d`ik djsaA ,lŒMhŒ ftrsUæ e; eksgj ¼ftrsUæ Árki flag½ Fkkuk/;{k flfoy ykbu bVkok] ,lŒMhŒ viBuh; fnukafdr 06-07-2020 e; eksgj ,lŒ,uŒ oSHko ik.Ms; {ks=kf/kdkjh uxj egksn; bVkok] ,lŒMhŒ viBuh; fnukafdr 08-07-2020 e; eksgj iqfyl v/kh{kd uxj bVkok] ,lŒMhŒ viBuh; fnukafdr 11-07-2020 e; eksgj ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd bVkok] ,lŒMhŒ viBuh; fnukafdr 22-07-2020 e; eksgj eftLVsªV bVkokA uksV% eSa dkŒ 1286 lrsUæ dqekj Áekf.kr djrk gwa fd xSax pkVZ dh udy dEI;wVj ij 'kCn o 'kCn eq> dkŒ }kjk vafdr dh x;hA ihŒ,uŒvksŒ 152241102A** (E) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1243 of 2021:- The First Information Report No.0008/2021, dated 07.01.2021 registered against the petitioner under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Badalpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar:- ^^C;ku tqckuh fgUnh oknh-------------C;ku fd;k fd fnukd 06-01-2021 dks esa ,lvks /kesZUnz dqekj 'kekZ e; gejkg gSŒ dkŒ674 ekbdy e; dkŒ587 ccyw flokp e; izkbosV okgu ds jokuk'kqnk jirk jiV lŒ26 le; 13-08 cts jokuk gksdj ckn ns[kjs[k {ks= 'kkfUr O;oLFkk pSfadx lafnX/k O;fDr@okgu ryk'k vijk/khx.k vkfn {ks= Fkkuk gktk ls e; vuqeksfnr 'kqnk xSax pkVZ Jheku iqfyl vk;qDr egksn; xkSrecq}uxj o vU; mPpkf/kdkjhx.k xSax yhMj xkSjo xqIrk iq= vkseizdk'k xqIrk fuoklh 473 deyk okVj thVh jksM Fkkuk flgkuhxsV tuin xkft;kckn ds okil vk;kA tkWp ls ik;k fd xSax yhMj xkSjo xqIrk iq= vkseizdk'k mijksDr dk ,d laxfBr fxjksg gS blds xSax lnL; 1- lquhy dqekj iq= LoaŒ jkes'oj fuoklh ?kw?kukeksM lqHkk"kuxj fudV nhid MkDVj dh nqdku Fkkuk flgkuhxsV xkft;kckn 2- fofiu dqekj mQZ lksuw xks;y iq= izeksn dqekj xks;y fuoklh eŒuaŒ97 PkUnzfxjh Fkkuk flgkuhxsV tuin xkft;kckn 3- nsosUnz ;kno iq= Hkwysjke ;kno fuoklh c`gLifr cktkj ds lkeus fclj[k jksM NijkSyk Fkkuk cknyiqj xkSrecq) uxj ds lkFk feydj Fkkuk {ks= esa gfj;k.kk o v:.kkpy izns'k ls xkft;ksa esa Hkjdj voS/k 'kjkc ykuk ,oa /kks[kk/kMh dj 'kjkc fefJr dj voS/k 'kjkc rS;kj dj vkfn tSls t?kU; ?kVuk, djds voS/k :i ls /ku vftZr fd;k tk jgk gSA turk dk dksbZ O;fDr buds fo:) xokgh nsus ;k fjiksVZ fy[kkus dk lkgl ugh djrs gSA buds }kjk fd;s tk jgs bl d`R; ls turk es Hk; o vkrad fy[kkus dk lkgl ugh djrs gSA buds }kjk fd;s tk jgs bl d`R; ls turk es Hk; o vkrad dk ekgkSy iSnk gks jgk gSA ftlls dkuwu ,oa yksd O;oLFkk izHkkfor gqbZ gS ;s vijk/khx.k lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki esa fujarj fyIr gS bu yksxks dks ;g d`R; HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds v/;k; 16] 17 ,oa 22 esa of.kZr vijk/k gSA xSax yhMj ,o mlds lg;ksxh;ksa dk vkijkf/kd bfrgkl eqrkfcd xSax pkVZ bl izdkj gSA xSax yhMj xkSjo xqIrk iq= vkseizdk'k mijksDr 1- eqŒvŒlŒ 313@19 /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 272] 273 HkkŒnŒfoŒ o 60@63@72 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e Fkkuk cknyiqj xkSrecq}uxj] lnL; 1+- Lkquhy dqekj iq= LoŒjkes'oj flag mijksDr 1 eqŒvŒlŒ 313@19 /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 272] 273 HkknfoŒ o 60@63@72 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e Fkkuk cknyiqj xkSre uxj 3] eqŒvŒlŒ 1368@18 /kkjk 60@63@72 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e Fkkuk flgkuh xsV tuin xkft;kckn o lnL; 2- lksuw xks;y iq= izeksn xks;Yk mijksDr ds fo:) eqŒvŒlŒ 313@19 /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 272] 273 HkknfoŒ o 60@63@72 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e Fkkuk cknyiqj xkSrecq) uxj o lnL; 3- nsosUnz ;kno iq= jkeHkwy ;kno mijksDRk ds fo:} eqŒvŒlaŒ 313@19 /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 272] 273 HkkŒnŒfoŒ o 60@63@72 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e Fkkuk cknyiqj xkSrecq} uxj gS] vfHk;qDrx.k dk ;g d`R; mŒÁŒ fxjksgcUn ,oe~ lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1986 dh /kkjk 2@3 dk vijk/k curk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k dk turk esa LorU= jguk tufgr esa Bhd ugh gSA vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:} vfHk;ksx iathd`r dj foospuk fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA viuk fy[kk;k x;k C;ku dEI;wVj ij idj ns[kk tks cksyk ogh VkbZi fd;k x;kA uksV% eSa gSŒ dkŒ 976 dq'kyiky flag Áekf.kr djrk gaw fd C;ku tqckuh udy dEI;wVj ij esjs }kjk cksy cksy dj dEI;wVj ij dkŒ 2684 lanhi dqekj ls 'kCn o 'kCn VkbZi djkbZ xbZ gSA** (F) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1403 of 2021:- The First Information Report No.0499/2020, dated 30.09.2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly:- ^^lwpuk tqckuh vkt fnukad 30-09-2020 dks eS ,l,pvks /kuUt; flag e; gejkgh;ku dkŒ 251 vfuiky] dkŒ1689 eksfgr dqekj] e; thi ljdkjh e; pkyd dkŒ jkedqekj ds Fkkuk gktk ls jokuk gqvk ckn ns[kjs[k 'kkfUr O;oLFkk {ks= o vuqeksfnr xSax pkVZ e; nhxj dkxtkr ds okil vk;k] esjs iwoZ vf/kdkjh }kjk Fkkus ij miYkC/k fjdkMZ ds vk/kkj ij 1- uUgs [kkW iq= cq)k [kka fuoklh xzke jgiqjk Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 2- ,stwc [kkW iq= lYyw [kkW fuoklh xzke jgiqjk Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 3- bdjke iq= ,stwc [kkW fuoklh xzke jgiqjk Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 4- tkfgn iq= esagnh [kkW fuoklh jgiqjk Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 5] cMs mQZ cMw [kkW iq= eLrtkc [kkW fuoklh xzke f[keiqjk Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 6- vkye iq= v[rj fuoklh esoklQkZiqj Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 7- uoh vgen iq= uoh'ksj fuoklh xzke esoklQkZiqj Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 8] NksVs iq= uoh'ksj fuoklh xzke esoklQkZiqj Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh 9- tku eksgEen iq= 'ksj eksgEen fuoklh xzke esoklQkZiqj Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh ds fo:) muds d`R;ks ds vk/kkj ij ,d xSx pkVZ fnukad 28-09-2020 vuqeksfnr 'kqnk dks RkS;kj fd;k x;k] ftls mfpr ek/;e ls Jheku ftyk eftLVsªV cjsyh dks izsf”kr fd;k x;k Fkk] eq>s izHkkjh fujh{kd }kjk Fkkuk/;{k Qjhniqj us Hkh iwoZ vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk vklikl ds yksxks ls Hkh tkudkjh ,df=r dh x;h rks xSax yhMj uUgs [kkW iq= cq)k [kka fuoklh xkze jgiqjk Fkkuk Qjhniqj cjsyh ds fo:) eqŒvŒlaŒ 724@19 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,l ,DV Fkkuk Qjhniqj o eqŒvŒlŒ 187@20 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,l ,DV o 429 Hkknfo Fkkuk Qjhniqj tuin cjsyh iathd`r gSA vfHk;qDr ,stwc [kkW iq= lYyw [kkW mijksDr ds fo:) eqŒvŒlŒ 724@19 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,l ,DV Fkkuk Qjhniqj iathd`r gS rFkk vfHk;qDr bdjke iq= ,stwc mijksDr ds fo:) eqŒvŒlaŒ 724@19 /kkjk 3@5@,@8 lh,l ,DV Fkkuk Qjhniqj iathd`r gS] rFkk tkfgn iq= esagnh [kka mijksDr ds fo:) eqŒvŒlŒ 724@19 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh ,l ,DV Fkkuk Qjhniqj iathd`r gS] rFkk vfHk;qDr cMs mQZ cMMw [kkW mijksDr ds fo:) eqŒvŒlaŒ 724@19 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,Lk ,DV Fkkuk Qjhniqj iathd`r gS RkFkk vfHk;qDr vkye iq= v[rj mijksDr ds fo:) eqŒvŒlŒ187@20 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,l ,DV o 429 Hkknfo Fkkuk Qjhniqj iathd`r gS] rFkk vfHk;qDr vkye iq= v[rj mijksDr d fo:) eqŒvŒlŒ 187@20 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,l ,DV o 429 Hkknfo Fkkuk Qjhniqj rFkk vfHk;qDr uoh vgen mijksDr ds fo:) eqŒvŒlaŒ 187@20 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,l ,DV o 429 Hkknfo iathd`r gSA fo:) eqŒvŒlaŒ 187@20 /kkjk 3@5,@8 lh,l ,DV o 429 Hkknfo iathd`r gSA mDr vijk/khx.k fugk;r gh fglad o gsdM fdLe ds vijk/kh gS] bl xSax dk vke turk esa bruk Hk; o vkrad O;kIr gS fd buds fo:) dksbZ Hkh turk dk O;fDr dqN Hkh dgus ls Mjrk gS mDr xSx dks vijk/k djus ls jksdus ds fy, Hkjld iz;kl fd;s x;s gS] ysfdu ;g xkSd'kh o bjknu gR;k tSls foHkRl ?kVuk] vkfn izeq[k vijk/k fd;s gS] fnukad 28-09-2020 dks Jheku ftyk eftLVªsV ojsyh }kjk vuqeksfnr xSax pkVZ e; nhxj dkxtkr ds izkIr gqvk] ;g vijk/khx.k vkfFkZd ykHk vftZr djus ds mnns'; ls djrs gS vfHk;qDr uUgs [kkW xSax yhMj gS ,oa ,stwc] bdjke] tkfgn] cMs mQZ [kka vkye] uoh vgen] NksVs] tku ekSgEen lfØ; lnL; gSA ;g yksx HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds v/;k; 16 o 17 es of.kZr vijk/k djus ds vH;Lr vijk/kh gS bu dk {ks= esa [kqys :i ls jguk lekt ds fgr es ugh gS bu yksxks dk mDr d`R; lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki vf/kŒ 1986 dh /kkjk 2¼17½@3 xSaxLVj ,DV ds varZxr n.Muh; vijk/k gS vr% mijksDRk vijkf/k;ksa ds fo:) vfHk;ksx ithd`r fd;k tkrk gSA uksV es ,Lk,pvks /kuUt; flag izekf.kr djrk gwW fd lwpuk tqckuh esjs }kjk cksy cksydj dkŒ2093 nkfu'k ls djk;h x;h gS] RkFkk ,Pklh 574 ;nqohj flag izekf.kr djrk gwWW eqdnek dk;eh esjs lwpuk tqckuh ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h gS] rFkk lhlhVh,u,l ij QhfM+Xk dkŒ2093 nkfu'k }kjk dh x;hA^^ (G) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1306 of 2021 The First Information Report No.0201/2020, dated 22.05.2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj:- ^^lwpuk tqckuh oknh& eS ,lŒvksŒ jkt dqekj flag e; gejkg dkŒ 496 vkfnR; frokjh dkŒ697 vrqy dqekj o eŒdkŒ 1143 T;ksfRk e; thi ljdkjh ;wih 74 th 0181 cRkkSj pkyd gsŒ dkŒ lwjs'k flag jokuk'kqnk jQrk jiV jksŒ vke rkjh[kks bejkstksl okn ns[kjs[k {ks= xLr Hkze.k pkSfdax lafnX/k O;fDr@okgu jksdFkke tqeZ tjk;e] ryk'k okafNr vfHkŒx.k dksjksuk ok;jl egkekjh ds n`f"Vxr ykdMkmUk vkxjk y[kuÅ ,Dlizsl os ij izoklh Jfedks dh fuxjkuh o lqj{kk O;oLFkk eqŒvŒlŒ 500@19 /kkjk 302@201 HkkŒnŒfoŒ o eqŒvŒlaŒ506@19 /kkjk 302@201 HkkŒnŒfoŒ ls lEcf/kr ls foghu 'ko o vKkr 'ko dh irkjlh lqjkxjlh ,oa okyk ehfVax f'kjdr Jheku ftykf/kdkjh egksn; ,oa Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; tuin dUukSt dysDVsªV LkHkkxkj dUukSt ls ,oa tkWp vuqeksfnr xSaxpkVZ xSxyhMj lquhy dqekj iq= dkS'ky fd'kksj mez 24 o"kZ fuŒ tfjgkiqj Fkkuk lkSfj[k tuin dUukSt vkfn 4 uQj vfHkŒx.k ftl ij i`"Bkafdr vkns'k lhŒvksŒ fNcjkeÅ egksn; o vij iqfyl v/kh{kd o Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; o Jheku ftykf/kdkjh egksn; Øe'k% fnŒ11-05-2020] 12-5-2020] 15-5-2020] 119@ts, ,oa 'kklukns'k la[;k 12@06&iqŒ] 2003 fjV 2003 fnukad 02-01-2004 ds Øe es vuqeksfnr Jheku ftykf/kdkjh egksn; ,lMh vxzasth viBuh; fnŒ 15-05-2020 ckcr vfHk;qDrx.k 1& lquhy dqekj iq= dkS'ky fuŒ tfjgkiqj lkSfj[k dUukSt mez 24 o"kZ 2&f'kok nqcs iq= fouhr dqekj nqcs fuŒtfjgkiqj lkSfj[k dUukSt mez 22 o"kZ 3& jktdqekj iq= es?kukFk fuŒ tfjgkiqj lkSfj[k dUukSt mez 23 4&jkew 'kkD; iq= jkethr fuŒHkVkSjk fo/kwuk vkSjs;k dk ,d lqxafBr fxjksg gS ftldk xSx yhMj lquhy dqkj mijksDr Lo;a gS rFkk ftlds lfØ; lnL; f'kok nwcs] jke dqekj o jkew 'kkD; mijksDr gSA ;g xSax vius o vius ifjokj ds lnL;ks dks HkkSfrd o vkfFkZd ykHk djokus ds fy, voS/k vlygks ls yS'k gksdj pksjh tSls t?kU; vijk/k dkfjr djus dk iss'ksoj vijk/kh gS budk lekt es bruk vf/kd Hk; o vkrad O;kIkr gS fd buds fo:) lekt dks dksbZ Hkh O;fDr U;k;ky; es xokgh nsus vFkok fjiksVZ fy[kkus dk lkgl ugh dj ikrk gSA ;g xSax HkkŒnŒfoŒ ds v/;k; 17 es of.kZr vijk/kks dks dkfjr djus dk vH;Lr vijk/kh gS lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdykiks es iwjh rjg lfayIr gS bl xSx dk vke turk ds chp LoNUn jguk tufgr U;k;fgr es lhaekdu ugh gSA buds d`R;ks ij vadq'k yxk;k tkuk vfr vko';d gS bl xSax ds fo:) /kkjk 3¼1½ mŸkj izns'k fxjksg cUn ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1986 ds varZxr dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk I;kZIr vk/kkj gSA lwpuk ntZ dh tkosA uksV eS dkŒ112 lkSjHk jkBkSj izekf.kr djrk gwW fd ,l vkS Jh jktdqekj flag }kjk lwpuk tqckuh vfdr djk;h gS dEi;wVj ij 'kCn o 'kCn vfdr dh x;h gS o jksŒvke es [kqyklk gSŒ dkŒ82 jkeeksgu }kjk djk;k x;k gSA^ (H) CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1411 of 2021 The First Information Report No.0483/2020, dated 23.08.2020 registered against the petitioner under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at P.S. Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj:- ^^udy rgjhj fgUnh oknh iz/kku ys[kd@lgk;d ys[kd Fkkuk ?kwjiwj iz;kxjktA eS Fkkuk/;{k ?kwjiwj Hkwous'k dqekj pkScs e; gejkg dkŒ gfjds'k pkSgku e; ljdkjh okgu ;wŒihŒ32chthŒ 7510 e; pkyd dkŒ fnus'k dqekj flga ds jokuk 'kqnk jksŒ vke rkjh[k f}jkstk ls ckn ns[kHkky {ks= psafdx lafnX/k O;fDr okgu isf.M+x foospuk o vkxkeh R;ksgkj x.ks'k prqFkhZ o eksgjZe ds n`f"Vxr {ks= Hkze.k es ekewj Fkk fd nkSjkus Hkze.k {ks= ds fo'oLFk lw=ks ls Kkr gqvk fd 1& vfHk"ksd ;kno iq= us dqekj ;kno fuoklh clokj Fkkuk ?kwjiwj tuin iz;kxjkt mez&29 o"kZ 2&dYyw ;kno mQZ ';keckcw ;kno iq= LoŒ jkelthou ;kno fuoklh clokj Fkkuk ?kwjiwj iz;kxjkt mez 27 o"kZ 3& xksdqy mQZ jktdqekj fu"kkn iq= jkeckcw fu"kkn fuoklh clokj Fkkuk ?kwjij iz;kxjkt mez 24 o"kZ 4& /keZjkt ;kno iq= LoŒ jkecgknqj ;kno mQZ dMd fuoklh clokj Fkkuk ?kwjiwj iz;kxjkt mez 34 o"kZ dk ,d laxfBr fxjksg gS bl xSax dk yhMj vfHk"ksd ;kno mijksDr gS bl xSx ds yhMj o lnL;ks }kjk gR;k tSlk mijk/k dkfjr djuk is'kk gS] xSax yhMj o buds lnL;ks }kjk lekt es Hk; o vkard dk okrkoj.k mRiUu dj j[ks gS] vke turk o {ks= ds vkl ikl bykdks esa budk vkard o ng'kr O;kIr gS xSax yhMj vfHk"ksd ;kno mijksDr o bud lnL; HkknfoŒ ds v/;k; 16 o 22 es of.kZr vijk/k djus ds vH;Lr vijk/kh gS 'kkfUr o dkuwu O;oLFkk ds n`f”Vxr ds vkijkf/kd d`R;ks dh jksdFkke gsrq izHkkoh dk;Zokgh dh vko';drk gS buds fo:) turk dk dksbZ Hkh O;fDr iqfyl es f'kdk;r o vfHk;ksx iathd`r djkus dk lkgl ugh dj ikrk gS vkSj u gh U;k;ky; o iqfyl esa xokgh nsus dks rS;kj gksrk gS bl xSax }kjk dkfjr fd;s x;s vijk/kks dk fooj.k fuEufyf[kr gS &1& eqŒvŒlaŒ 754@2018 /kkjk 302] 201 Hkknfo Fkkuk ?kwjiwj iz;kxjkt vkjksi i= laŒ597@18 fnuakd 27-12-18 2& eqŒvŒlaŒ 379@17 /kkjk 323] 504] 506] 308 Hkknfo Fkkuk ?kwjiwj iz;kxjkt vkjksi i= laŒ189@17 fnukad 17-09-17 ns[krs gq, xSax pkVZ rS;kj djkdj Jheku ftyk eftLVsªV iz;kxjkt ls vuqeksnu ds mijkar izkIr fd;k x;k gS] Fkkuk {ks= rFkk vkl ikl ds {ks=ks esa 'kkfUr O;oLFkk LFkkfir djus gsrq bu yksxks dk lekt es Lora= jguk Bhd ugh gS bl fxjksg ds xSax yhMj o lnL;x.k mijksDr ds fo:) /kkjk 2@3 mŒizŒ fxjksg can lekt fojks/kh fØ;k dyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1986 ds rgr vfHk;ksx iathd`r djsA ¼,lMh½ vaxzsth gLrk{kj 23@8@2020] ¼Hkqous'k dqekj pkScs½ Fkkuk/;{k] Fkkuk ?kwjiwj tuin iz;kxjkt uksV%& eS dkŒeqŒ 3110 eukst dqekj ;kno izekf.kr djrk gwW fd rgjhj dh udy dEI;wVj ij cksydj v{kj'k% vafdr djk;kA^^ 5. The petitioners of respective writ petitions have prayed to quash the impugned first information reports registered against them under Sections 2/3 of the Act, 1986. Hence, they have filed the present writ petitions. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that merely on the basis of solitary criminal case registered against the petitioners, a case under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 cannot be registered. In support of their submissions, the petitioners have relied upon judgments of this court in Subhash and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (paragraphs 7, 14, 17, 47, 48), dated 24.03.1997 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.835 of 1998; Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1987, (24) ACC 164 (para 22) and another Division Bench judgment in the case of Ajai Rai Vs. State of U.P. 1995 (32) All Cri C 477. Submissions on behalf of the State-Respondents:- 7. Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the provisions of Sections 3 of the Act, 1986 even if a single criminal case is registered against the petitioners, then also the F.I.R. under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 can be registered provided the ingredients of Section 3 of the Act, 1986 are satisfied. Relevant Statutory Provisions:- 8. Since controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions mainly relates to provisions of Section 2(b), Section 2(c) and Section 3 of the Act, 1986, therefore, these provisions are reproduced below:- “Preamble:- An Act to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, gangsters and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Since controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions mainly relates to provisions of Section 2(b), Section 2(c) and Section 3 of the Act, 1986, therefore, these provisions are reproduced below:- “Preamble:- An Act to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, gangsters and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(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 of 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 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. Section 2(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; Section 3:- Penalty. - (1) A gangster shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years and which may extend to ten years and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees: Provided that a gangster who commits an offence against the person of a public servant or the person of a member of the family of a public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years and also with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees. (2) Whoever being a public servant renders any illegal help or support in any manner to a gangster, whether before or after the commission of any offence by the gangster (whether by himself or through others) or abstains from taking lawful measures or intentionally avoids to carry out the directions of any Court or of his superior officers, in this respect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than three years and also with fine.” Discussion and Findings:- 9. In Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 , Hon’ble Supreme Court as per majority view, observed that “the Legislation begins where Evil begins.” The legislature being guided by its sacrosanct duty to protect individual members of the society to enjoy their rights without fear and see that some people do not become a menace to the society in singular or collective manner as indicated. The Constitutional Validity of the Act, 1986 has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. and another, (2013) 8 SCC 368 . While upholding the constitutional validity, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Para-45 (SCC) that the accused is tried by the Special Court as he is ‘gangster’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1986 and is involved in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself. It was further observed that apart from normal criminality, the accused is also involved in an organised crime for a different purpose and motive. The intention of legislature is to curve such type of crime, which has become epidemic in the society. It was further observed in para-47 (SCC) that in the case at hand it can be stated with certitude that the legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life. It has to be kept uppermost in mind that control of crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity, for it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens. Therefore, the legislature has, in actuality, responded to the actual feelings and requirements of the collective. It was also observed vide paras 38-39 (SCC) of the aforesaid judgment that in essence, liberty of an individual should not be allowed to be eroded but every individual has an obligation to see that he does not violate the laws of the land or affect others’ lawful liberty to lose his own. The cry of liberty is not to be confused with or misunderstood as unconcerned senile shout for freedom. The cry of liberty is not to be confused with or misunderstood as unconcerned senile shout for freedom. Protection of the collective is the bone marrow and that is why liberty in a civilized society cannot be absolute. It is the duty of the courts to uphold the dignity of personal liberty. It is also the duty of the court to see whether the individual crosses the “Lakshman Rekha” that is carved out by law is dealt with appropriately. No individual has any right to hazard others’ liberty. The body polity governed by Rule of law does not permit anti-social acts that lead to a disorderly society. 10. The provisions of the Act, 1986/ other similar provisions have been interpreted by this Court and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgments so as to appropriately answer the questions framed above in this batch of writ petitions. 11. In N. Sengodan vs. State of Teamil Nadu, (2013) 8 SCC 664 (paras-47-48), Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of The Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 and held as under : “47. In State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri) 192, this Court defined mala fides and held: (SCC p.260, paras 50-51) “50. Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power. 51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been made mala fide for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. 51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been made mala fide for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If it is established that the action has been taken mala fide for any such considerations or by fraud on power or colourable exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to stand.” This Court in the same case of P.P. Sharma (supra) further held that: (SCC pp.261-62, para 55) “55. ……. the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine as a party-respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations.” In the present case the appellant has not only made assertion but demonstrated by placing either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable that even though the case has not made out but he was harassed. 48. Personal liberty is of the widest amplitude covering variety of rights. Its deprivation shall be only as per procedure prescribed in the Code and the Evidence Act conformable to the mandate of the Supreme Law, the Constitution. The investigator must be alive to the mandate of the Constitution and is not empowered to trample upon the personal liberty of a person when he has acted by malafides, as held by this Court in P.P. Sharma.” 12. In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference with the FIR in writ jurisdiction and has illustrated certain circumstances, in which FIR can be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said illustrations crystallized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and others (supra), are reproduced below : “(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. In Ashok Rai and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 1995 (25) ALR 423 (Paras 6 & 8), a Division Bench of this court held as under : “6. To appreciate the submission as made by Sri Chaturvedi and his learned associate advocate, we must go through the definition of "gang' as enunciated under Section 2(b) of the Act. It states that "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 -----------”. 8. It states that "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 -----------”. 8. The definition itself indicates that if a group of persons acting either singly or collectively indulged in any of the activities as elaborated in the section, by means of violence etc. with the objects as indicated therein, the group is to be termed a "gang". We may not put any words within the definition with a view to infer that a gang is to be formed first and then any of the anti-social activities, as detailed in the definition, is to be committed. Under the definition the essentials required are (1) Existence of a group of persons, (2) commission by them, singly or collectively, any of the anti-social activities as detailed in the definition, (3) such commission should be associated with Violence or threat or show of violence, or intimidation etc. and (4) the object of such commission should be gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel that the definition demands that the gang is first to be made and commission of the anti-social activities is to be followed.” 14. In Application U/S 482 No. - 3239 of 2005 (Tej Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another), decided on 20.04.2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under : “A careful perusal of the definition of "Gangster" and "Gang" would not fail to indicate that if an offence punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII and Chapter XXII of Indian Penal Code is committed with the object of disturbing public order or with the object of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary or material advantage, such activity on the part of accused can make him liable to face the imposition of Gangsters Act in question. He may commit such kind of act just once and may face a single F.I.R. or he may commit such kind of offences many times and may face more than one F.I.Rs. in that connection. It is not the number of F.I.Rs. He may commit such kind of act just once and may face a single F.I.R. or he may commit such kind of offences many times and may face more than one F.I.Rs. in that connection. It is not the number of F.I.Rs. which is relevant as it is significant to assess whether the crime committed by the accused was inspired and prompted with the motive of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary or material advantage or not. It is the object of the offence or the motive behind it which is of crucial significance in order to adjudge whether the provisions of Gangsters Act in question can be brought into application in a given case or not. After having perused the record, this Court finds itself in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants that though the accused are facing the allegations of having committed murder but they cannot be said to have committed the crime because they were gangsters. There was no motive of making any wrongful economic gains. This Court also does not see any material on the basis of which it may be held that the prime object behind committing the crime in question was so as to disturb the public order. Whenever some grave crime is committed it always leads to a consequential result of some kind of disturbance in society. Such normal disturbance in society and disturbing the public order or creating panic or terror are different species. Ordinary law and order problems can not be clubbed with phenomenon of break of public order. The crime in question does not appear to have been committed with the object of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other similar kind of advantage for itself or for any other person indulged in anti-social activities. Here in this context it may also be seen that in the definition of 'gang' as provided under Section-2(b) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) reference to the words 'gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage' for himself or any other person has been given. Here in this context it may also be seen that in the definition of 'gang' as provided under Section-2(b) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) reference to the words 'gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage' for himself or any other person has been given. One might argue that the words 'other advantage' is an all inclusive term and all kinds and categories of advantages will come under its title, and therefore, there is hardly any need to see the facts of the case with a fine class in order to find whether the object of the gang is or was of gaining undue temporal, pecuniary and material advantage or not. If the violence or offence committed was inspired to get any kind of advantage for himself or for any other person, the letter of definition as provided by the Act shall stand satisfied. But in the considered opinion of this Court such kind of approach will lead to complete misinterpretation of the Statute. If the Legislature in its wisdom has used a number of qualifying words with regard to Anti Social Activity as has been referred to and contemplated in the Act, then its whole purpose shall stand defeated by providing such an all sweeping meaning to the words 'other advantage' as has been used in the definition. If the term 'other advantage' was meant to include all advantages or was meant to include any kind of advantage whatsoever where was the need to use different other defining words like 'temporal, pecuniary and material' which immediately precede the words 'or other advantage' ! It is self evident that the use of the preceding words have a qualifying effect and must be seen lending its complexion to the subsequently used words 'other advantage'. The words 'other advantage' has got to be seen in the context and perspective and with reference to the preceding aforesaid words and must be understood in the same light. Just as a man is often known by the company he keeps, the import of words in Statute also are often to be seen and understood by the company of the words in which they appear. Just as a man is often known by the company he keeps, the import of words in Statute also are often to be seen and understood by the company of the words in which they appear. In this regard this Court deems it appropriate to keep in perspective the rule of 'Ejusdem Generis' in order to correctly appreciate the scope and the actual ambit of the general words which follow the aforesaid specific words used in the Statute. The Court is of the view that the aforesaid preceding words 'temporal, pecuniary and material' are constituting a genus and the words 'other advantage' has to be read as an species of the same. Though ordinarily the general words must be provided to bear their natural and larger meaning but they have to be confined Ejusdem generis to the class of things previously enumerated by certain specific words because it is not difficult to see clearly the intention of the Statute which it spells out by using a specific class and category of qualifying words. This Court sees reasons and therefore feels persuaded to limit the scope of the meaning of the general words 'other advantage' because if we provide to it a larger all embracing meaning it is likely to lead to absurd and unforeseen results. The general expression has to be read contemplating to imply the things of the same kind which have been referred to by the preceding specific class of things constituting a genus. If we do not adhere to this rule and do not impute specific complexion to the general words in the light of the preceding words the blatant misuse and plain absurdity to which it shall lead is that the administrative executives and the police would feel free to impose the provisions of this Act upon anybody and everybody who is facing the charge of committing any sort of offence or any breach of law howsoever trivial it be because hardly any violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion is done without having the object of gaining some kind of advantage himself or for any other person. The word 'advantage' has an all sweeping natural meaning and may include material and psychological both kinds of advantages. In that view of the matter the use of the words 'other advantage' will bring in its mischief everything under the sun. The word 'advantage' has an all sweeping natural meaning and may include material and psychological both kinds of advantages. In that view of the matter the use of the words 'other advantage' will bring in its mischief everything under the sun. It is therefore very expediently needed to read these words in right perspective and read them Ejusdem generis with the things or words previously enumerated by the Statute.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the case of Piyush Kanti Lal Mehta vs. Commissioner of Police, 1989 Supp.(1) SCC 322 (Paras 16 and 17), Hon’ble Supreme court considered the distinction between “law and order” and “public order” and after referring to the judgment in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10 (Paras 14 and 15), observed as under : “16. It is submitted by Dr. Chitale that the allegations which have been made by the said five witnesses against the petitioner are also very general in character and do not involve the question of public order. Counsel submits that there is a distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order’. The allegations made against the petitioner may give rise to a question of law and order but, surely, they have nothing to do with the question of public order. A person may be very fierce by nature, but so long as the public generally are not affected by his activities or conduct, the question of maintenance of public order will not arise. In order that an activity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be materials to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public. If any act of a person creates panic or fear in the minds of the members of the public upsetting the even tempo of life of the community, such act must be said to have a direct bearing on the question of maintenance of public order. The commission of an offence will not necessarily come within the purview of 'public order'. 17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10 ; where the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been clearly laid down. Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10 ; where the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been clearly laid down. Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows: (SCC pp. 14-15) "Does the expression 'public order' take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof. It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.” 16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash vs. State of U.P. and another, 1998 All.L.J. 2092 (Paras-8, 9, 11, 13 and 14) answered the question as to whether an FIR can be registered under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 on the basis of a single case and the meaning of the word “indulge” used in Section 2(b) of the Act and held as under : “8. In paragraph 58 of the judgment the Full Bench Bench met the argument of the counsels that there would always be an apprehension that a person, though not physically present on the scene of occurrence, could be roped in under the provisions of the Act in relation to that occurrence on the facile ground that, he was a gangster. The Court observed that the apprehension was not very real, but it also uttered a word of caution that it could not be dismissed as altogether imaginary or absurd. The Court observed that "police is sometimes prone to be overzealous and in order to win laurels, books all and one within the range of its rod. Needless to say, the Act has to be enforced in a reasonable manner. Care should be taken that no unnecessary inroad is made into the exercise of fundamental rights of the citizen or interference in the peaceful prosecution of their avocation." In paragraph 59 of the judgment the Court further observed, "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.” 9. The Full Bench further observed in paragraph 60 of the judgment that under the ordinary criminal law, it was sometime difficult to bring to book the overlords of crime and under world because they seldom operated in person or in public case. They indulged in clandestine operations which threaten to tear apart the very fabric of the society. In the immediate next paragraph again a note of caution was sounded by the Full Bench observing "provisions of the Act cannot be used as a weapon to wreck vengeance or harass or intimidate innocent citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts. The prosecution has to bear in mind that it has to bring home the guilt. 11. The prosecution has to bear in mind that it has to bring home the guilt. 11. The Division Bench in the case of Ajai Rai (supra) considered the above aspect in paragraph 9 of its judgment and in the absence of any definition of the words in the Act looked for the Dictionary meaning thereof. The word “indulges”, according to the Webster, meant "too yield to the desire of or to get pleasure in doing” etc. The word "indulge", according to Chamber, is a verb used as a transitive verb and also used as an intransitive verb. As a transitive verb, it meant "to yield to the wishes of", or "to favour or gratify", or "not to restrain". In an intransitive verb a meaning was given to the word "indulge" parallel to "permit oneself in action or expression". The word used in the Act is not only “indulges” but also followed by another word “in” and the Division Bench was of the view that “indulges in”, as used in the Act, meant "to permit oneself in action or expression" and with this meaning it was opined that the words carried the same connotation as "does" or "commits". The Division Bench was further of the view that these two common terms have been avoided by the legislature apparently for the reason that the words “indulges in" were followed by the words "anti-social activities" and the actions detailed in the 15 sub-clauses of Section 2 might not strictly come within the term "commits." 13. We may come to point No.3, categorised by us in the earlier pages of this judgment. We are to see, if under the concept of the offence, created by the Act, there must be some allegation of any act or omission towards commission of the offence. While taking up the question of constitutional validity of the Act in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra), the Full Bench had made certain very important observations which are relevant for the present point. It was observed that a person was not liable to be punished under the Act merely because he happened to be a member of the group. It was observed that a person was not liable to be punished under the Act merely because he happened to be a member of the group. The Court was, rather, of the view that a person could be accused of an offence only if he had chosen to join a group which indulges in anti-social activities, defined under the Act, with use of force for obtaining material or other advantages to himself or to any person. The Court was of the view "The element of actus reus is hence clearly present in the offence created under the statute." Whenever any act or omission covered by Sections 2 and 3 of the Act is reported an offence is made out and as a corollary it may be indicated without any fear of contradiction that unless an allegation is there concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of the term "gang" or "gangster", no F.I.R. should be maintainable. Whether the allegations are true or false will be a matter for investigation, but unless the allegations of an offence under the Act are indicated, as F.I.R. may not be justifiable whatever large the number of past acts be alleged against him. 14. As a sequel to this decision when there are some allegations of any act or omission towards the commission of the offence under the Act to justify an F.I.R., it follows that such an FIR 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 anti-social 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 "anti-social 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 be 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.” (Emphasis supplied by us) 17. 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.” (Emphasis supplied by us) 17. In a recent judgment dated 05.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3938 of 2021 (Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki vs. State of U.P. and another and other connected writ petitions), a Division Bench of this Court framed 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.” 18. The afore-noted question has been answered by the Division in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki (supra), as under : “After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that barring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4149 of 2021, all the above writ petitions were argued on the common point for which the question as framed, is answered that as per the settled principles of law, the lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case, is valid and permissible. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in the impugned first information reports or the cases on the basis of which the impugned first information reports have been lodged. The writ petitions are thus dismissed.” 19. Thus, 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) and thus, a ‘gangster’ under Section 2 who shall be liable for punishment under Section 3 of the Act, 1986. 20. The intention of the Act, 1986 is to curve such type of crime, which has become epidemic in the society. 20. The intention of the Act, 1986 is to curve such type of crime, which has become epidemic in the society. The legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life. Control of crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity and for this reason it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens. Thus, the Act, 1986, in actuality, responded to the actual feelings and requirements of the collective. In view of the basic idea of protection of the society, liberty in a civilized society cannot be absolute. Therefore, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the dignity of personal liberty and to see if an individual crosses the limit carved out by law, he needs to be dealt with appropriately, inasmuch as no individual has any right to hazard others’ liberty. Rule of law does not permit anti-social acts that lead to a disorderly society. 21. The Scheme of the Act, 1986 nowhere prohibits lodging of first information report under the Act, 1986 on the basis of a single case. In a recent judgment in the case of Ritesh Kumar @ Rikki (supra), a Division Bench of this court held that lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case is valid and permissible under the Act, 1986. Therefore, we have no difficulty to hold that a first information report may be lodged on the basis of a single case, provided the ingredients of the definition of ‘Gang’ under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1986 is prima facie satisfied. 22. For all the reasons aforestated, the question No.(i) as framed in para-3 above, is answered in affirmative. Consequently the question (ii) is answered in negative, inasmuch as no other point has been argued before us except quashing of the impugned FIRs on the ground that it has been registered on the basis of a solitary case. 22. For all the reasons aforestated, the question No.(i) as framed in para-3 above, is answered in affirmative. Consequently the question (ii) is answered in negative, inasmuch as no other point has been argued before us except quashing of the impugned FIRs on the ground that it has been registered on the basis of a solitary case. Accordingly, we hold that a first information report under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986, can be registered against a person even if only one criminal case is registered against him, and on the ground of registration of merely one criminal case, an FIR registered under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, cannot be quashed. 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.