JUDGMENT : Delivered by Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers: “a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 22.05.2023 bearing Case Crime No. 185 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Investigation Officer not to arrest petitioner pursuant to impugned first information report.” (Emphasis supplied) 3. Admittedly, earlier the petitioner approached this Court challenging the same First Information Reeport dated 22.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 185 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 by filing a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of 2023 (Mohammad Anees vs. State of UP and others), which was dismissed on 13.7.2023. The said order is quoted as under: “1. Heard Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. dated 22.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 185 of 2023 under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the base FIR the petitioner was not named and he was granted bail and only two cases have been mentioned in the gangster chart against the petitioner. 4. Learned A.G.A. submits that the petitioner has been chargesheeted in the base FIR and there are two cases and provisions of Gangster Act can be imposed on the basis of solitary case, which issue has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh decided on 26 April, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 569570 of 2022. 5. On perusal of the record and the first information report, we find that cognizable offence is made out. 5. On perusal of the record and the first information report, we find that cognizable offence is made out. We further find that Criminal Writ Petition No. 10538 of 2023 filed by the co-accused has already been dismissed vide order dated 11.7.2023. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to take a different view in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. Against the aforesaid order dated 13.7.2024, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 45613 of 2023 (Mohammed Anees vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), which, after arguing for some time, was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.12.2023, and after permission having been granted, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. It was further pointed out that if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. The said order dated 4.12.2023 passed in the said SLP is quoted as under: “After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the special leave petition. Permission granted. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reflects that the matter was argued for some time before the Hon’ble Apex court and it is only thereafter the Special Leave Petition was got dismissed as withdrawn. It is clear that no liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the first information report impugned herein was given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was, however, left open that “if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law”. The word “application” clearly indicates that it is not the permission granted to file second writ petition for the same cause of action before this Court, but only an application in the decided petition could have been filed, which may be either review application, which obviously would have been placed before the same Bench decided the writ petition (Criminal Misc. The word “application” clearly indicates that it is not the permission granted to file second writ petition for the same cause of action before this Court, but only an application in the decided petition could have been filed, which may be either review application, which obviously would have been placed before the same Bench decided the writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of 2023) and as the second Judge has been transferred from this Court, the same would have been placed before the Bench presided over by the Senior Judge of that Bench. In that case, there is no occasion that present petition would have been placed before the regular Bench as the roster has changed and there is a different Bench to consider the fresh petition on merits afresh. We, however, find that appropriate Bench after perusal of the order dated 13.7.2023 passed by the Bench presided by one of us (Vivek Kumar Birla, J.) passed the following order on 1.2.2024: “The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of 2023 (Mohammad Anees Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others) was dismissed on 23.07.2023 by the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. and Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SLP being Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Dairy No(s). 45613 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. In view of the same, let this case be listed on 20.02.2024 as fresh before the appropriate Bench after seeking nomination from Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice.” 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, present petition has been placed before this Bench as another second Hon’ble Judge (Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.) has been transferred from this High Court. We find that filing of second petition challenging the same impugned FIR, unless the permission is granted, is not maintainable. The law has been settled long back by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1987 SC 88 . The filing of second petition afresh on absolutely different grounds is more glaring as a different counsel has put in appearance and has challenged the same impugned FIR on different grounds and is thus, clearly seeking re-hearing of the matter before a different Bench now having jurisdiction over such matters. The filing of second petition afresh on absolutely different grounds is more glaring as a different counsel has put in appearance and has challenged the same impugned FIR on different grounds and is thus, clearly seeking re-hearing of the matter before a different Bench now having jurisdiction over such matters. The permission was granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court to file “an application”, which obviously would have been automatically placed before this Bench. Therefore, we find that this is nothing but an attempt to avoid the Bench, which had earlier dismissed the petition and amounts to Bench hunting. The grounds taken in the earlier writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of 2023) are quoted as under: “I. Because the story of impugned F.I.R. dated 22.05.2023 is concocted having no truthfulness. In this case no offence is made out under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 against petitioner and impugned F.I.R. dated 22.05.2023 is liable to be quash by this Hon'ble Court. II. Because the petitioner is innocent and he has no occasion to surrender and go behind the bar. III. Because the petitioner is a peace loving and law abiding citizen of the society. IV. Because both the cases mentioned in the Gang Chart of the present case imposed on the petitioner on the single day in a single instance. V. Because so far as case of the Investigation of Case Crime No.110 of 2022 Under Section 3/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Under Section 11 (Tha) Animal Cruelty Act and Under Section 34 IPC, Police Station Partapur District Meerut and Case Crime No.113 of 2022 Under Section3/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Under Section34 I.P.C. Police Station Partapur District- Meerut is still pending. VI. Because once the investigation of aforesaid both the cases is still pending, in the event there was no occasion with the Respondent No.2/3 to get register the impugned F.I.R. dated 22.05.2023 against the petitioner. VII. Because under the identical facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court has made interference under the Writ Jurisdiction and quash the F.I.R. of U/s 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act vide order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15593 of 2023. VIII. Because under the aforementioned circumstances petitioner cannot be say as a"Gangster". His alleged act does not come under the purview of the "Gangster". IX. Writ Petition No.15593 of 2023. VIII. Because under the aforementioned circumstances petitioner cannot be say as a"Gangster". His alleged act does not come under the purview of the "Gangster". IX. Because once the investigation of aforesaid both the cases is still pending, in the event there was no occasion with the Respondent No.2/3 to get register the impugned F.I.R. dated 22.05.2023. 7. Present petition has been filed with the following grounds: “A. BECAUSE from perusal of entire record, it is crystal clear that no joint meeting of respective authorities were done in compliance of Section 5(3)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, therefore, impugned first information report is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. B. BECAUSE no separate list of criminal history was attached by the respondent number 4 while sending the gang chart for approval before respective authorities as required under Rule 5(3)(e) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, hence impugned first information report is liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. C. BECAUSE no up-to-date status of cases mentioned against petitioner has been mentioned in the gang chart pursuant to Rule 8 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, therefore impugned first information report is liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. D. BECAUSE Rule 8(3) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 clearly says that the latest status of the cases against the gang, which are being shown in the gang-chart, regarding their pendency in the Special Court, the convictions or the state at which they are in the Court, must be clearly mentioned, the said mandatory provision has conveniently skipped by the respondent number 4, therefore, impugned first information report is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. E. BECAUSE it is crystal clear from the undated cognizance and summoning order passed pursuant to the charge sheet dated 29.12.2022 arising out of Case Crime Number 113 of 2022 registered at Police Station Partapur, Meerut that the same was passed subsequent to the lodging of present first information report. F. BECAUSE just to accommodate the police authorities in the impugned first information report, Learned Magistrate pass cognizance and summoning order without any date. F. BECAUSE just to accommodate the police authorities in the impugned first information report, Learned Magistrate pass cognizance and summoning order without any date. G. BECAUSE at the time of lodging of impugned first information report, no cognizance order in case arising of Case Crime Number 113 of 2022 was passed, hence instant writ petition deserves to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court on this ground alone. H. BECAUSE Rule 18 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 deals with Format of the Gang Chart and it clearly says that the “Gang Chart shall be sent only in the manner as given in Form No. 1 of these rules.” From perusal of Form No. (1) Format of Gang Chart, column number 6 requires Details and current status of criminal cases. I. BECAUSE from perusal of the gang chart enclosed herein above, the same is completely missing, hence the same is not according to Rule 18 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021; therefore impugned first information report is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. J. BECAUSE there is no strict compliance of Rule 16 and 17 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 in the present case and therefore, impugned first information report is nothing but a colorable exercise of power vested in respondent number 4, therefore impugned first information report is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. K. BECAUSE respective authorities who are duty bound to look into as to whether the gang chart has been prepared according to The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 and further as to whether all the formalities have been fulfilled or not had clearly overlooked relevant mandatory provision while approving gang chart resulting in impugned first information report, hence the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. L. BECAUSE competent authorities has forwarded their recommendations in a very casual manner without applying their independent mind. M. BECAUSE in the present case, approval of gang chart is nothing but a total non-application of independent mind of respective authorities involved in approval of gang chart against petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court by quashing impugned first information report dated 22.05.2023. M. BECAUSE in the present case, approval of gang chart is nothing but a total non-application of independent mind of respective authorities involved in approval of gang chart against petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court by quashing impugned first information report dated 22.05.2023. N. BECAUSE from perusal of entire available with the petitioner, it is crystal clear that while approving the gang-chart, competent District Magistrate, Meerut did not hold any discussion that any joint meeting as required under Rule 5(3)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 has been held, therefore the same is clear violation of mandatory provision implemented with the Rules of 2021. O. BECAUSE the present first information report is nothing but an abuse of the process just to falsely implicate and humiliate petitioner pursuant to impugned first information report. P. BECAUSE police of concerned police station is raiding the house of petitioner in order to arrest him; petitioner had an apprehension that he would be arrested in connection with the above false case. Q. BECAUSE first informant/respondent number 4 has lodged impugned first information report with totally false and frivolous story only for the purpose to drag petitioner in the instant criminal case. R. BECAUSE petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with pending investigation with a prayer before this Hon’ble Court that he may not be arrested in the present case. S. BECAUSE allegations leveled in impugned first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, therefore this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash impugned first information report. T. BECAUSE impugned first information report seriously hampered the right of petitioner enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. U. BECAUSE petitioner is legally advised that he had no other efficacious, equally, speedy, alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Perusal of the grounds would clearly disclose that the same are entirely different in nature. U. BECAUSE petitioner is legally advised that he had no other efficacious, equally, speedy, alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Perusal of the grounds would clearly disclose that the same are entirely different in nature. This practice cannot be appreciated as present petition being second petition having been filed without there being any permission having been granted by Hon’ble Apex Court after hearing the arguments for some time to file fresh/second petition on different grounds and as such it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. We further find that all such grounds that have been taken in the present petition were clearly available to the petitioner at the time of challenging the impugned order in the earlier petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10390 of 2023). 9. Although copy of the Special Leave Petition has not been annexed with present petition, however, presumably all such grounds that are now being taken, must have been advanced before the Hon’ble Apex Court and thereafter the petition was sought to be withdrawn for which permission was granted and in place of filing review application, second petition with full knowledge that it would not be placed before this Bench, was filed by a new counsel, which, in our opinion, is nothing but an attempt of Bench hunting and is thus, an abuse of process of law. 10. At this stage, a prayer was made that the petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file review application. We are not inclined to accept the same, as we have already noticed the grounds taken in the present petition, which, as already observed, clearly reflect that the petitioner is seeking re-hearing of the matter on merits, which would be beyond the scope of review application as per settled law. A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us, Vivek Kumar Birla, J. was the member) has considered the scope of review in detail in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 25 (DB). 11. Therefore, even if it is considered to be a review application, the re-hearing of matter is not permissible. 12. 11. Therefore, even if it is considered to be a review application, the re-hearing of matter is not permissible. 12. In such view of the matter, present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being second writ petition for the same relief stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousand), which the petitioner shall deposit with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of 'Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad'. If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost of Rs. 20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousand), the Registrar General of this Court shall inform the District Magistrate/Collector concerned for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue, who shall after recovering the said amount from the petitioner, transmit it to the Registrar General of this Court for depositing in the account of 'Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad' within a further period of three months.