Allahabad High Court
Vikas Jaiswal Alias Golu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 June, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3562 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vikas Jaiswal Alias Golu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ruhi Siddiqui, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents no.1 to 3 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Vikas Jaiswal alias Golu, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.05.2022 registered as F.I.R. No.219 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur and also issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to arrest or adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that entire allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner are false and baseless. He further submits that no case under the Gangster Act is made out against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of one criminal case, which has been registered against him bearing Case Crime No.385 of 2021, under Sections 255, 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Section 60(1), 63, 72 of Excise Act and Sections 51, 63 of Copyright Act at Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur, as is evident from the Gang Chart which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner is neither gangster nor gang leader nor the member of gang nor the gang of organizer, hence he do not fall within the ambit of gangster as defined under Section 2(c) of the Gangster Act. He further submits that except one case, petitioner has no criminal history and even the alleged cases were registered on the basis of concocted story. It has further been argued that the petitioner has not committed any offence and, prima facie, no case is made out against him, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. She has further submitted that the Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of single case. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Shraddha Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others [2022 Law Suit (SC) 535].
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R., we are of the opinion that the impugned F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
[Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.] [Ramesh Sinha, J.]
Order Date :- 2.6.2022
Shubhankar
