The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that an FIR under the Gangster Act can be registered even against a minor. There is no such restriction in law.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Surendra Singh-I passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Raju Pathak.
The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 24.11.2022 registered as Case under Section 3(1) of U.P Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Haldi, District- Ballia.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the first information report has been lodged against the petitioner, Raju Pathak and two other persons, namely, Aakash Giri and Yogesh Tiwari alias Rahul Tiwari, alleging therein that co-accused, Aakash Giri runs a gang and the petitioner is the member of the said gang and they committed offence against the society.
It has been next submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal cases shown in the gang chart. The petitioner has been released on bail by the court concerned in (i) Case u/s 380, 411, 457 I.P.C, P.S- Dokati, District- Ballia vide order dated 09.11.2022, (ii) Case u/s 379, 411, 414/34 I.P.C, P.S- Haldi, District- Ballia vide order dated 28.02.2023 and (iii) Case u/s 4/25 of Arms Act, P.S- Haldi, District- Ballia vide order dated 10.11.2022.
It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that at the time of implication in the case crime numbers shown in the gang chart, the petitioner was minor. The Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia has declared the minor as juvenile vide order dated 13.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Case, State Vs Raju Pathak, relating to Case u/s 392, 411, 414, 34 I.P.C, Police Station- Haldi, DistrictBallia.
It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been released on bail vide order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Case u/s 3(1) of U.P Gangsters Act, Police Station- Haldi, District- Ballia, which is related to the impugned first information report.
It has been further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since at the time of commission of offences mentioned in the gang chart, the petitioner was a minor and the informant has falsely lodged the first information report relating to Case against the petitioner.
It has also been submitted that the District Magistrate has approved the gang chart in a mechanical manner without examining material on record and without recording his subjective satisfaction. Thus, the impugned first information report dated 24.11.2022 is illegal and is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, A.G.A for the State has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the impugned first information report was registered against the petitioner after following the procedure prescribed in U.P Gangsters Act and rules framed therein.
He has also submitted that there is no legal bar for registering criminal cases under U.P Gangsters Act, against the accused on the basis of criminal cases mentioned in the gang chart which was committed by him as a juvenile.
The Court observed that,
From the above discussion, it is clear that on the date of registration of first information report relating to the case crime numbers mentioned in the gang chart although the petitioner was minor but his age was more than 16 years. The Case u/s 380, 411, 457 I.P.C and Case u/s 379, 411, 414/34 I.P.C is mentioned in Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. According to Rule 22 of the U.P Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, Case under Section 3(1) of U.P Gangsters Act was imposed on the basis of a single case committed by him which is mentioned in Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
Thus, registration of criminal case u/s 3(1) of U.P Gangsters Act against the petitioner, Raju Pathak, is not prohibited by the provisions of Rule 27 and 22 of U.P Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. Thus, the plea raised by the petitioner that U.P Gangsters Act cannot be imposed against the minor, is not tenable and is liable to be rejected.
Rule 16 of U.P Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, provides the manner of the recommendation to be made while forwarding the gang chart. It also provides formalities required for approval of gang charts by the competent authority which may be Commissioner of Police or District Magistrate depending whether Commissionerate of Police has been constituted or not constituted in the district.
The gang chart is incomplete as it provides only the base criminal cases on the basis of which case under U.P Gangsters Act was registered against the petitioner and two co-accused. It does not consist of the page relating to approval thereof by the District Magistrate. Thus, the petitioner has withheld necessary information required for ascertaining satisfaction of the District Magistrate in granting approval. Thus, the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands.
Considering the law propounded by the Court in Ambuj Parag Dubey (supra), there is no substance in the plea advanced by counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to show subjective satisfaction of the D.M in approving imposition of U.P Gangsters Act against the petitioner and that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind on the material produced before sanctioning the registration of case under U.P Gangsters Act against the petitioner.
“From the aforesaid discussion, it is our considered view that the first information report under Section 3(1) of U.P Gangsters Act against the petitioner has been registered as per the provisions of law. There is no ground to quash u/s 482 Cr.P.C the impugned first information report dated 24.11.2022 registered as Case under Section 3(1) of U.P Gangsters Act, Police Station- Haldi, District- Ballia”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.