Allahabad High Court
Ravi Prakash Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2940 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Udai Karan Saxena(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R dated 20.03.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 0147 of 2021 for the offence under Section 3 (1) Uttar Pradesh Gangster & Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, Police Station Cantt, District Gorakhpur with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the petitioner is neither a gangster nor a member of a gang. Learned counsel has argued while placing paragraph 13 to the writ petition that the petitioner is a businessman and is running a stationary shop in the name and style of M/s Surya Stationers and Sports at Gorakhpur. It is further argued that in the gang chart, one case has been shown on the basis of which the impugned first information report has been registered and in the said case, he has been granted bail. Paragraph 9 of the writ petition along with Annexure-4 has been placed. It is argued that the implication of the petitioner in the said case is false and lodging of the first information report under the Gangster Act is without application of mind and in a mechanical manner. It is argued that the gang chart and the first information report are against law and cannot be sustained and there is no reason mentioned in the gang chart as to under what circumstances Gangster Act has been imposed upon the petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2006) 56 ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others : AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case. Further, this Court has in the case of Kishan Pal @ K.P. Vs. State of U.P. : 2006 (54) ACC 1015 has also in detail dealt with regarding the jurisdiction of this Court in matters under the Gangster Act pending investigation.
Further the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani : (2017) 2 SCC 779 has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies arresting the accused where prayer of quashing the First Information Report has been refused.
The Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021) in its judgment dated 13th April, 2021 has in detail held that the Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the First Information Report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details regarding the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court should not go into merits of the allegations made in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner (s) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 16.6.2021
AS Rathore
