Bechu And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5555 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4348 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Bechu And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Singh,Anupesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

The Court has convened through Video Conferencing.

Heard Shri Sandeep Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, 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 petitioners - Bechu & Rojan Ali with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 30.05.2022 as Case Crime No.140 of 2022, under Sections 3(1) of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Baundi, District Bahraich, 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 petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of only one case, as is evident from the records. He next argued that the petitioners have been granted bail in the aforesaid case by the Court below vide orders dated 19.04.2022 and 14.04.2022 and the impugned FIR under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 30.05.2022, which is just an abuse of process of law. He next argued that the petitioners are neither member nor run any gang involved in anti-social activities, hence they 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, petitioners have no criminal history and even the alleged case was registered on the basis of concocted story. It has further been argued that the petitioners have not committed any offence and, prima facie, no case is made out against them, 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 petitioners, 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 petitioners, 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.

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) (Ramesh Sinha, J)

Order Date :- 29.6.2022

A.Dewal