Allahabad High Court
Vishnu Dhar Dubey @ Babloo Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 November, 2022
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17753 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vishnu Dhar Dubey @ Babloo Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 2.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No.914 of 2022 under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short "the Gangster Act"), Police Station Cantt., Distt. Gorakhpur and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against him are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence. He has further submitted that truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt take place, when the investigation is done or trial proceeds. Probability, reliability or genuineness cannot be looked under Art.226 of the Constitution. The FIR can only be quashed in a writ jurisdiction, if the FIR does not discloses commission of offence and that too prior to framing of charges. As such it is submitted that no interfere is required in the matter.
Learned AGA has submitted that the Gangster Act has been imposed on the petitioner on the basis of two criminal cases. He has further submitted that law is already settled that even against the solitary case proceeding under the Gangster Act may be drawn. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Division Bench in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4622 of 2019 (Somvir Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) as well as in many judgments by this Court, wherein it is propounded that even a single case, if fulfills the category of offences given under Section 2(b) (i) to (xv) of Act and is being committed by gang defined under Section 2 (b) or gangster defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act may be basis for registration of case crime number for offence punishable under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shraddha Gupta Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider as to whether prosecution under the Gangster Act can be initiated against a person even in case of single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
"On a fair reading of the definitions of 'Gang' contained in Section 2(b) and 'Gangster' contained in Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act, a 'Gangster' means a member or leader or organiser of a gang including any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2, who either acting singly or collectively commits and indulges in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) can be said to have committed the offence under the Gangsters Act and can be prosecuted and punished for the offence under the Gangsters Act. There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a 'Gang' and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act...Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person."
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the judgments cited above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.11.2022
SP/
