Allahabad High Court
Anand Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1989 of 2023
Petitioner :- Anand Kumar And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Roopesh Kumar Nigam,Udantika
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioners is taken on record.
Case is called out. None appears on behalf of the petitioners to press the instant petition. However, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing 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 petitioners - Amit Kumar with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 31.08.2022 bearing FIR No.0318 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Ali Nagar, District Chandauli; with a further prayer to not arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned FIR.
It has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of only one 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 no.1 has been granted bail in the aforesaid case by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.14921 of 2022 and the impugned FIR under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 31.08.2022, which is just an abuse of process of law. He next argued that the petitioners are neither member nor run any gang involved in anti-social activities, hence they do not fall within the ambit of gangster as defined under Section 2(c) of the Gangster Act. He further submits that except two cases, petitioners have no criminal history and even the alleged cases were registered on the basis of concocted story. It has further been argued that the petitioners have not committed any offence and, prima facie, no case is made out against them, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate 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 petitioners, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. He has further submitted that the Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of single case. In support of her 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 petitioners, 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 petitioners.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajiv Gupta, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
Anand Sri./-
