Allahabad High Court
Kallu Alias Sanjeev Sethia vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 April, 2022
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on :- 10.03.2022
Delivered on :- 12.04.2022
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1787 of 2022
Petitioner :- Kallu Alias Sanjeev Sethia
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar,Shiv Shankar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 26.12.2021 registered as Case Crime No.600 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of a single case shown in the gang chart in which case the role of the petitioner has not been defined. Only on account of company of other persons, the petitioner has been roped in. The District Magistrate, without considering the objective material for granting sanction, has approved the report of Circle Officer lodging FIR under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the petitioner, which is against the provisions of law and without jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court passed on 05.03.1987 in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and another, especially paragraphs 68, 72 and 75 thereof, which are quoted herein below:-
"68. The Act seeks to punish declared criminals who have deliberately chosen the life of crime. The activities of these professional perpetrators of organised crimes, violence and orgy has a far more baneful effect on the health and morals of the society and its people. If the activities of such recidivists are subjected to same punishment as the other ordinary criminals, the confidence of public in the efficacy and efficiency of State administration is bound to shake. It was precisely with this end in view that Lawton J. while submitting a memorandum to the Royal Commission on the Penal System 1964-66 underlined the need that the Courts should be empowered to pass sentences of "rigorous imprisonment" on the hardened professional criminal.
72. Counsel then expressed an apprehension that though a person may not be physically present on the scene of occurrence, yet he may be roped in under the provisions of the Act in relation to that occurrence on the facile ground that he is a gangster. The apprehension does not appear to be very real. But then, it cannot be dismissed as altogether imaginary or absurd. Police is sometimes prone to be overzealous and in order to win laurels books one and all within the range of its rod. Needless to say. the act has to be enforced in a reasonable manner. Care should be taken that no unnecessary inroad is made into the exercise of fundamental rights of the citizen or interference in the peaceful prosecution of their avocation.
75. But nevertheless we must sound a note of caution. Provisions of the Act cannot be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate innocent citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts. The prosecution has to bear in mind that it has to bring home the guilt. Then, there is a further provision for appeal. Thus, the power of judicial review of this Court has been preserved. If it is ultimately found that a person was proceeded with in sheer bad faith out of malice and by way of political vendetta the authorities do not enjoy any immunity under Section 22 of the Act. This immunity is confined only to acts done in good faith."
5. In response to the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA has submitted that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is of the year 2021 states that on account of his threat, no witness is coming forward to get his statement recorded before the Investigating Officer, in the cases lodged earlier. As such, due to lack of evidence, final reports had to be submitted in some cases.
6. Learned AGA also submitted that in the gang chart, two cases are shown against the petitioner and as per the FIR in one case, two persons had been shot by fire arms and the petitioner is prima facie involved.
7. We have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA and perused the judgment placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Full Bench judgment of this Court. This judgment has been passed while deciding the validity of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Full Bench, while considering the validity of Gangster Act laid down the pros and cons of the newly inforced Act but ultimately dismissed the challenge before it.
8. Reliance by petitioner's counsel upon the paras of Full Bench judgment distinguishable as the present case relates to an FIR. We have to see whether the FIR has been lodged in correct perspective, i.e., in consonance with the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. As such, the same cannot be applied here.
9. Upon perusal of FIR, nothing emerges on the basis of which it could be said that District Magistrate's order of approval for registering first information report against the petitioner is beyond his jurisdiction. It is clear from a perusal of FIR that on account of threat extended by the petitioner investigation of earlier cases was hampered and Investigating Officer could not file charge-sheet. The sanction for registering FIR against the petitioner, therefore, suffers from no illegality. It is also the settled proposition of law that on account of a single case, Gangster Act can be invoked.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find it a fit case for interference and since the FIR cannot be quashed, there is no justification to entertain this writ petition.
11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for bail.
Order Date :- 12.04.2022
Nitin Verma
(Deepak Verma,J.) (Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.)
