Mohammad Adeeb @ Addu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7812 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2002 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Mohammad Adeeb @ Addu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Nath Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

Heard Shri B.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, 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- Mohammad Adeeb @ Addu with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 26.02.2023 registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0042 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Kursi, District Barabanki with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

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 four cases, mentioned in the gang chart. Copy of gang chart is annexed as Annexure-8 to the present petition. He next argued that the petitioner has been granted bail in the aforesaid cases by the court below, copies of the orders of bail are annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition and the impugned F.I.R. under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 26.02.2023, 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 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. He has further submitted that the Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of single case. In support of his 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner.

The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 17.3.2023

Shubhankar