High Court · 2025

behalf of learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.

3. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of GST (Gangster ST no. 11 of 2004) Case Crime no. 273 of 2003, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities) Act, 1986, PS- New Agra, District Agra pending in court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Agra. Submission on behalf of applicant

4. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for applicant is that FIR was lodged bearing Case Crime no. 273 of 2023 against applicant and two other co-accused namely Imran and Anwar wherein, it has been alleged that informant namely Rakesh Kumar Singh, Station Officer, P.S. New Agra was on round in his area on 26.06.2003. He received information at 06:00 P.M. that three persons of notorious character and who are chain snatchers are standing near Agarwal Seva Sadan. He came at the given place and on pointing out by the informer arrested the three persons namely Imran, Anwar and the applicant namely Irshad. He carried on search of these three persons and recovered one necklace (locket) from Imran and another from Anwar but nothing from applicant Irshad. He contacted the local police station and was told that the recovered golden necklace were snatched from two different lady on

30.05.2003 and 22.06.2003 for which case crime No. 241 of 2003 under Section 356 IPC and Case Crime No.270 of 2003 under Section 356 IPC had been registered at the Police Station concerned. Here at this stage the owner of the recovered ornaments namely Rajendra Singh and Smt.Vandana Agrawal appeared at the site of arrest and identified their ornaments. At the place of alleged arrest, recovery memo was prepared and the present case crime no.273 of 2003 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act was registered as the Station Officer, stated in the recovery memo that the acts of the applicant and other two arrested persons come within purview of section 2/3 Gangster Act. In pursuance of the present FIR charge sheet has been submitted before learned court concerned whereupon cognizance order dated 21.01.2004 has been passed, summoning the applicants.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that once the two cases cited in the FIR is under Section 356(3) IPC which is only an attempt of theft and which shows that nothing was stolen then how the Station Officer recovered ornaments is big wonder which is the only basis for arrest and then prosecution of applicant which is pending for last 23 years. For sake of reference Section 356 IPC is quoted herein below: “Section 356- Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 2 of 5

6. It is next submitted that without going into the investigation of the case, it can be said with all certainty that no offence under Section 2/3 Gangster Act is disclosed from the FIR. At the time of arrest, there was no rule under the Gangster Act and the Rule was framed in 2021, however, it is relevant to mention that now under the said Rule a gang chart is to be prepared and Rule 3(c) provide that the gang chart shall not mention the cases in which acquittal has been granted by learned Special Court or in which final report has been filed after investigation.

7. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for applicant relied upon judgments rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court which are as under: i. Subhash vs. State of U.P. reported in 1998 0 Supreme (All) 337 ii. Dinesh Loniya vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 LawSuit(All) 939 iii. Master @ Ramzan and anr. vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home and others reported in 2020 0 Supreme(All) 855.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for applicant prayed that the prosecution of applicant is complete abuse of process based on whims of the Station Officer and the same deserves to be quashed. Submission on behalf of State

9. Although no written submission has been submitted at the behest of the State but at the time of final hearing, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the entire stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant, but at the same time, learned AGA also submitted that it is apparent from the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by learned court of Special Judge while considering the application preferred at the behest of the applicant for cancellation of the warrant, the same has been denied and the applicant has been sent to jail and as such there is hardly any order available in the order sheet preferred along with the instant application that applicant has been ever granted bail either by 3 of 5 learned court of Session or by this Court and as such it is apparent from the order sheets that applicants is still languishing in jail and in that circumstances, the instant application for preferring challenging entire proceeding of Gangster Act initiated against the applicant cannot be put to challenge, rather the same has to be properly tried by learned concerned court. Observation and Conclusion

10. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of the written submissions preferred at the behest of the applicant by Sri Indra Sen Singh, learned counsel appearing for applicant, it is apparent from the order sheet that the charge sheet has been preferred on dated 21.01.2004 whereupon applicant along with other co-accused have been summoned and after the gap of near about 20 years applicant preferred an application for seeking cancellation of the warrants issued against him on the basis of non-appearance before learned court concerned for near about two decades.

11. While challenging the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime no. 273 of 2003 in pursuance to 2/3 of Gangster Act, no specific grounds have been taken up by learned counsel for the applicant which might be in violation of the specific modification issued by State Government of Uttar Pradesh for regulation of proceedings in absence of Gangster Rules, 2021. So far as relating the factum of the matter is concerned the trial has been delayed for last more than two and half decades only at the behest of non- appearance of the applicant before learned court concerned which is crystal clear example of non-cooperation with the learned court concerned in pursuance to several summoning proceedings available under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. which has been adopted, when lastly applicant appeared before learned court concerned on dated 10.06.2024 application preferred at the behest of applicant has been rejected and he has been sent to jail by way of adopting procedure under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. 4 of 5

12. The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is factually altogether different from the facts of instant matter and as such the same are not applicable, whereas it is apparent from the order sheet that even after having knowledge of several orders passed since 2004 to 2024 applicant appeared before learned court of Special Judge, Gangster Act on dated 10.06.2024 itself.

13. Challenging process of law can be considered only on the conduct of the applicant but in the instant matter reflection of conduct of the applicant is not in the manner, wherein the prayer as made in the application can be acceded. Non-cooperating with the learned court concerned is itself misuses of process of law and the person who is not cooperating even after implication in several other criminal matters which is apparent from the charge sheet submitted under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant is altogether not sustainable in the eye of law.

14. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, and in the light of the observations as made above, instant application lacks merit and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Shaswat (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5

behalf of learned counsel for applicant is taken on record.

3. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of GST (Gangster ST no. 11 of 2004) Case Crime no. 273 of 2003, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangster (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities) Act, 1986, PS- New Agra, District Agra pending in court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Agra. Submission on behalf of applicant

4. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for applicant is that FIR was lodged bearing Case Crime no. 273 of 2023 against applicant and two other co-accused namely Imran and Anwar wherein, it has been alleged that informant namely Rakesh Kumar Singh, Station Officer, P.S. New Agra was on round in his area on 26.06.2003. He received information at 06:00 P.M. that three persons of notorious character and who are chain snatchers are standing near Agarwal Seva Sadan. He came at the given place and on pointing out by the informer arrested the three persons namely Imran, Anwar and the applicant namely Irshad. He carried on search of these three persons and recovered one necklace (locket) from Imran and another from Anwar but nothing from applicant Irshad. He contacted the local police station and was told that the recovered golden necklace were snatched from two different lady on

30.05.2003 and 22.06.2003 for which case crime No. 241 of 2003 under Section 356 IPC and Case Crime No.270 of 2003 under Section 356 IPC had been registered at the Police Station concerned. Here at this stage the owner of the recovered ornaments namely Rajendra Singh and Smt.Vandana Agrawal appeared at the site of arrest and identified their ornaments. At the place of alleged arrest, recovery memo was prepared and the present case crime no.273 of 2003 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act was registered as the Station Officer, stated in the recovery memo that the acts of the applicant and other two arrested persons come within purview of section 2/3 Gangster Act. In pursuance of the present FIR charge sheet has been submitted before learned court concerned whereupon cognizance order dated 21.01.2004 has been passed, summoning the applicants.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that once the two cases cited in the FIR is under Section 356(3) IPC which is only an attempt of theft and which shows that nothing was stolen then how the Station Officer recovered ornaments is big wonder which is the only basis for arrest and then prosecution of applicant which is pending for last 23 years. For sake of reference Section 356 IPC is quoted herein below: “Section 356- Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any property which that person is then wearing or carrying shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 2 of 5

6. It is next submitted that without going into the investigation of the case, it can be said with all certainty that no offence under Section 2/3 Gangster Act is disclosed from the FIR. At the time of arrest, there was no rule under the Gangster Act and the Rule was framed in 2021, however, it is relevant to mention that now under the said Rule a gang chart is to be prepared and Rule 3(c) provide that the gang chart shall not mention the cases in which acquittal has been granted by learned Special Court or in which final report has been filed after investigation.

7. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for applicant relied upon judgments rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court which are as under: i. Subhash vs. State of U.P. reported in 1998 0 Supreme (All) 337 ii. Dinesh Loniya vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 LawSuit(All) 939 iii. Master @ Ramzan and anr. vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home and others reported in 2020 0 Supreme(All) 855.

8. Lastly, learned counsel for applicant prayed that the prosecution of applicant is complete abuse of process based on whims of the Station Officer and the same deserves to be quashed. Submission on behalf of State

9. Although no written submission has been submitted at the behest of the State but at the time of final hearing, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the entire stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant, but at the same time, learned AGA also submitted that it is apparent from the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by learned court of Special Judge while considering the application preferred at the behest of the applicant for cancellation of the warrant, the same has been denied and the applicant has been sent to jail and as such there is hardly any order available in the order sheet preferred along with the instant application that applicant has been ever granted bail either by 3 of 5 learned court of Session or by this Court and as such it is apparent from the order sheets that applicants is still languishing in jail and in that circumstances, the instant application for preferring challenging entire proceeding of Gangster Act initiated against the applicant cannot be put to challenge, rather the same has to be properly tried by learned concerned court. Observation and Conclusion

10. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of the written submissions preferred at the behest of the applicant by Sri Indra Sen Singh, learned counsel appearing for applicant, it is apparent from the order sheet that the charge sheet has been preferred on dated 21.01.2004 whereupon applicant along with other co-accused have been summoned and after the gap of near about 20 years applicant preferred an application for seeking cancellation of the warrants issued against him on the basis of non-appearance before learned court concerned for near about two decades.

11. While challenging the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime no. 273 of 2003 in pursuance to 2/3 of Gangster Act, no specific grounds have been taken up by learned counsel for the applicant which might be in violation of the specific modification issued by State Government of Uttar Pradesh for regulation of proceedings in absence of Gangster Rules, 2021. So far as relating the factum of the matter is concerned the trial has been delayed for last more than two and half decades only at the behest of non- appearance of the applicant before learned court concerned which is crystal clear example of non-cooperation with the learned court concerned in pursuance to several summoning proceedings available under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. which has been adopted, when lastly applicant appeared before learned court concerned on dated 10.06.2024 application preferred at the behest of applicant has been rejected and he has been sent to jail by way of adopting procedure under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. 4 of 5

12. The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is factually altogether different from the facts of instant matter and as such the same are not applicable, whereas it is apparent from the order sheet that even after having knowledge of several orders passed since 2004 to 2024 applicant appeared before learned court of Special Judge, Gangster Act on dated 10.06.2024 itself.

13. Challenging process of law can be considered only on the conduct of the applicant but in the instant matter reflection of conduct of the applicant is not in the manner, wherein the prayer as made in the application can be acceded. Non-cooperating with the learned court concerned is itself misuses of process of law and the person who is not cooperating even after implication in several other criminal matters which is apparent from the charge sheet submitted under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant is altogether not sustainable in the eye of law.

14. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, and in the light of the observations as made above, instant application lacks merit and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Shaswat (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5