Allahabad High Court
Shayam Narayan Yadav Alias Badkau vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4174 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shayam Narayan Yadav Alias Badkau
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Nath Mishra,Ashutosh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Satyendra Nath Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Tiwari, 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 - Shayam Narayan Yadav @ Badkau with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR No.113 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur 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 three cases, 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 cases by court below and the impugned FIR under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 12.05.2022, which is just an abuse of process of law. He next argued that the petitioner is neither 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. He further submits that except three cases, 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. He 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 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./-
