Mustkeem vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5407 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4185 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Mustkeem
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjai Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard Shri Dhananjai Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Mustkeem with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 08.06.2022 bearing FIR No.0464 of 2022, under Section 2(b)(i) & 3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri with a further prayer to not arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned FIR.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of criminal history of three cases, however, one case, i.e. Case Crime No.346 of 2021, under Sections 380, 411 I.P.C., has been mentioned in the gang chart. Copy of gang chart is annexed as Annexure-2 to the present petition. He next argued that the petitioner has been granted bail in the aforesaid case by the court below vide order dated 18.08.2021, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the petition and the impugned FIR under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 08.06.2022, which is just an abuse of process of law. He next argued that the petitioner is neither a member nor runs any gang involved in anti-social activities, hence he does not fall within the ambit of gangster as defined under Section 2(c) of the Gangster Act. 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. He has further submitted that the Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of single case. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Shraddha Gupta v. 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 petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 27.6.2022

Anand Sri./-