Allahabad High Court
Rt. Rev. Dr. Peter Baldev vs State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4365 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rt. Rev. Dr. Peter Baldev
Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Singh Tomar,Anand Swarup Rai
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 Ratnesh Singh Tomar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.P. Singh, 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 - Rt. Rev. Dr. Peter Baldev with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 09.04.2022, lodged by opposite party no.4, in F.I.R. No.0128 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow Central (Lucknow Commissionerate) with a further prayer to not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned F.I.R.
It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is the Bishop of Diocese of Lucknow Church of North India and is also Ex-Officio Chairman of Christ Church McConaghy, School Society Lucknow. He further argued 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 in two cases, the petitioner has been granted interim protection vide orders dated 30.01.2018 and 01.02.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.1869 of 2018 and 2732 of 2021, copies of the same are annexed as Annexure Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition. He further argued that in third case, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and he surrendered before the court concerned and the impugned F.I.R. under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 09.04.2022, which is just an abuse of process of law. He further argued that earlier the co-accused Vinod Kumar Frank had approached this Court challenging the impugned F.I.R. by filing a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3780 of 2020, in which his arrest has been stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.06.2022, a copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner claims parity to the said order. He next argued that the petitioner is neither member nor run 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 submits that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Vinod Kumar Frank. 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.
[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.] [Ramesh Sinha, J.]
Order Date :- 30.6.2022
Shubhankar
