MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dtd. 24/3/2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, the respondent no.2; and, a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to attach the properties of the respondent nos.4 to 9 under the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

(2.) Heard Mr. Sagar Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State.

(3.) Mr. Sagar Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 contacted the petitioners and other persons and offered a scheme. The petitioners deposited a huge amount of money under the said scheme. The respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 refused to return the money and jewellery, deposited by the petitioners, and, other persons. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that three FIRs have been registered against the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 under Ss. 420, 406, 120B of the IPC and Sec. 3/4 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that four complaint cases are also pending against the respondent no.5 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and one case against the respondent no.6 is pending under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioners moved an application before the District Magistrate, Dehradun under Sec. 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act, 1986"). The District Magistrate did not take any action on the said application. Therefore, the petitioners approached to this High Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the said application, filed under Sec. 14 of the Act, 1986, within a period of one month. The said application was not decided within the stipulated period. Therefore, the petitioners moved a contempt petition before this Court. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun.