IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.829 OF 2010 Balveer Yadav ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …Respondents Dated: September 29, 2010 Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Sri GS Sandhu, GA for the State/respondents no.1 & 2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR lodged as FIR No.478/2010 u/s 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [hereinafter to be referred as the Act], PS Kashipur, Distt. US Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner on 25.9.2010 at 7:40 PM at PS Kashipur, Distt. US Nagar stating therein that Kaushal Yadav is a professional miscreant, who has created his own Gang, of which the petitioner Balvir Yadav is an active Member. These accused used to commit the various offences viz. attempt to murder, extortion and others. On 27.8.2010, the petitioner along with co-accused Kaushal Yadav shot a fire upon one Jaspal Singh @ Jassi with intention to kill him. It was also stated that the petitioner along with co-accused, has also committed the offences punishable under sections 307/506 IPC which was registered as FIR no.430/2010. It was also stated that these accused have created so much terror that no one gets ready to give 2 evidence against them. As such this FIR was lodged against the petitioner and co-accused u/s 2/3 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is a single case shown against the petitioner in the gang chart and that is not sufficient to show “activities” required for the purposes of constituting the offence punishable u/s 2/3 of the Act. I do not find any force in this argument. The term “Gangster” has been defined u/s 2(c) of the Act which is quoted as below: - (c) Gangster means a member or leader or organizer of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities or 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; Similarly, Section 2(b)(i) of the Act is also pertinent to mention, the relevant portion of which is quoted as below: - (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 for 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)……………………………. ………………………………….. It is pertinent to mention here that the offences, on the basis of which the Gangster Act has been imposed against the petitioner, are under Sections 307 and 506 IPC, which have been defined under Chapter XVI and XXII of the IPC respectively. It has also been stated in the FIR that the co- accused Kaushal Yadav has created a gang of which the petitioner Balvir Yadav, is 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 3 order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person and they are also indulged in anti-social activities, and as such, it is proved that the petitioner is an active Member of the Gang. Now, the term “gangster” defines that Gangster means a member or leader or organizer of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities or a gang enumerated in clause 2(b) of the Act, whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities. Hence, it is also proved that the petitioner is a active member of the gang formed by the co-accused Kaushal Yadav and the petitioner is abetting and assisting in the activities, as has been enumerated in clause 2(b) of the Act, as has been quoted above. As such, after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie the offence punishable u/s 2/3 of the Act is made out abundantly against the petitioner. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of FIR and other documents available on record as well as after seeing the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) September 29, 2010 Rajeev Dang