Allahabad High Court
Anand Pasi vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3343 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anand Pasi
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Kumar Soni
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Jay Kumar Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ruhi Siddiqui, 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 - Anand Pasi with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 22.04.2022 bearing FIR No.0067 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Gangster Act'), Police Station Subeha, District Barabanki; 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 single case, 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 case by the court below, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the instant petition and the impugned FIR under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 22.04.2022, which is just an abuse of process of law. 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 single case, petitioner has no criminal history. 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. She has 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 vs. State of U.P. and others [2022 Law Suit (SC) 535].
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra), and perusing impugned F.I.R., which discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that 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.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 30.5.2022
Anand Sri./-
