Allahabad High Court
Umesh Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 December, 2023
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240225-DB
Reserved on 03.11.2023
Delivered on 19.12.2023
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17254 of 2023
Petitioner :- Umesh Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Singh,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act whereby four properties have been seized on the ground that these properties had been purchased from money accumulated by the petitioner and his gang through their illegal activities.
3. The properties attached are a Flat No. BT/E/703 Block E, Type-E, River View Enclave Betava Apartment Section 4 Gomati Nagar Extension, Lucknow, a Flat No. C2-403, 2BHK, 4th floor, Section 6 MI Rasal Court Apartment Gomati Nagar Lucknow, Two vehicles, one a Mahindra Thar and the other a Tyota Glanza.
4. The first property is in the name of the petitioner while the other flat is recorded in the name of brother of the petitioner namely Rajesh Singh @ Rajan Singh while the vehicles are registered in the name of his nephew Vishal who are only ostensible owners. The order also records that Case Crime No. 47 of 2010 Under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Case Crime No. 1866 of 2009 under Sectioin 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 404, 120B, 325 I.P.C. and 4 C.L. Act, and Case Crime No. 9 of 2012 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act and Case Crime No. 545 of 2012 under Section 3(2) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Case Crime No. 120 of 2020 under Section 447 IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Case Crime No. 308 of 2022 under Section 504, 506 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 91A of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC, Crime no. 100 of 1995 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 324 IPC and Case Crime No. 2936 of 2006 under Section 110G Cr.P.C. Police Station Kotwali are registered against the petitioner.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier in time certain properties belonging to the petitioner were attached and that the representation for their release was filed under Section 15(1) of the Act, which were rejected. However, the Court, in both cases set aside the seizure order.
6. It is next contended that the provisions of the Gangsters Act have been invoked against the petitioner on the basis of a single case wherein the petitioner has been acquitted. Case Crime No. 186 of 2009 wherein the petitioner was acquitted on 29.09.2017. Even the case under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act being Case Crime No. 47 of 2010, the petitioner has also been acquitted vide order dated 02.09.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order under Section 14(1) of the Act was passed although the judgment in the case under the Gangsters Act had been reserved.The pronouncement of the judgment was delayed with ulterior motive and in the meantime the property was seized by the impugned order dated 25.08.2023. On the strength of the above, it is contended that the impugned order is illegal because the seizure has been ordered 10 years after lodging the FIR under the Gangsters Act which case has ended in acquittal.
8. Although the acquittal has been recorded after the order of seizure, the seizure is liable to be set aside even though there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner by filing an objection/representation as provided under Section 15(1) of the Act.
9. It is not in dispute that insofar as the properties recorded in the name of the brother and nephew, of the petitioner are concerned namely Flat No. C2-403, 2BHK, 4th floor, Section 6 MI Rasal Court Apartment Gomati Nagar Lucknow and the two vehicles, their representation under Section 15(1) of the Act is still pending for consideration.
10. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the writ petition.
11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. It would be relevant to note that there is material to show earlier order of the High Court whereunder an order of seizure under Section 14(1) of the Act was set aside by the Writ Court without relegating to the petitioner of filing a representation/application under Section 15(1) of the Act.
13. In our considered opinion, the position insofar as the instant writ petition is definitely superior as compared to situation as existed when the Writ Court set aside the order of seizure in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 9950 of 2022, Umesh Singh v. State of U.P. and others vide the judgment and order dated 04.11.2020.
14. Since the petitioner has already been acquitted in the case under the Gangsters Act registered against him in the year 2010, any seizure of his property on the basis of such case cannot be sustained. Even if the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of filing a representation under Section 15(1) of the Act, the same would necessarily result in release of the property.
15. Under the circumstances relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy of representation/application under Section 15(1) of the Act would be an exercise in futility.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.08.2023 is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2023
Aditya Tripathi
