Allahabad High Court
Arun Vyas And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 16.05.2022
Delivered on 20.05.2022
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5663 of 2022
Petitioner :- Arun Vyas And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha,Om Prakash Chaube
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 25.04.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0067 of 2022, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Mahobkanth, District Mahoba.
The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are students and their exams are in progress. It has been next contended that the provisions of Gangsters Act have been invoked against the petitioners on the basis of seven cases and that in all cases, the petitioners have been released on bail by the court below. Copy of the bail orders has been annexed as Annexure- 3 to the writ petition.
It is further submitted that the petitioners are neither the gang leader nor they are associated with any gang as member and therefore, no offence under the Gangsters Act is made out against them. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, hence, the impugned F.I.R. be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Court in the case of T. Anthony Swamy and others Vs. Micheal Sadananda Baptist and others, reported in Manu/ka/0256/2020.
In para-8 of the judgment in T. Anthony Swamy's (Supra) case, the court has held thus:
"8. It is well settled proposition of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and if no case has been made out or even if the entire material does not disclose any offence, under such circumstance, the proceedings requires to be quashed. As the matter requires to be investigated and the final report has to be filed, without discussing the case on merits, at this juncture, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, liberty is given to the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 if they are advised to do so, they can challenge the charge sheet if a final report has been filed."
The Full Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in A.I.R1987 Alld 235 has held thus:
"The power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 226 being extraordinary is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases. The power to issue certiorari cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which a superior Court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a Court of appeal. The High Court cannot in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 convert itself into a Court of appeal when the legislature has not chosen to confer such a right. The High Court's function is limited to see that the subordinate court or Tribunal or authority functions within the limits of its power. It cannot correct errors of fact by examining the evidence."
In view of the aforesaid observation, no case for interference is made out. The First Information Report, which discloses an offence, cannot be quashed.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to apply for bail.
Order Date :- 20.05.2022
Meenu
