Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt ... 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. - 4256 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt U.P. Govt Civil Sectt Lko And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned F.I.R. dated 18.04.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0141 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of our cases i.e. Case Crime No.333/2020, under Sections 307, 420, 380, 457, 511 IPC, Case Crime No.332/2020, under Sections 457, 380, 411 IPC, Police Station Malihabad, Lucknow, Case Crime No.329/2020, under Sections 380, 411 IPC, Police Station Malihabad, Lucknow and Case Crime No.299/2020 under Sections 457, 380, 411 IPC, Police Station Mall, Lucknow. Copy of the gang chart is annexed as Annexure No.2 and 3 to the present petition. He next argued that after arresting in Case Crime No.333/2020, the petitioner never confessed before the police that he involved in theft case. He also argued that in Case Crime No.332/2020 and Case Crime No.329/2020 and Case Crime No.299/2020, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, but only on the basis of confessional statement of the accused, the petitioner has been challenged. 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 further submitted that the Gangsters 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 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing 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
Rakesh/-
