Allahabad High Court
Sahaj Ram Alias Tiger vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2133 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sahaj Ram Alias Tiger
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atiya Abid
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Ms. Atiya Abid, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arunendra, learned Additional Government Advocate 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 - Sahaj Ram alias Tiger with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR No.0138 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social (Activities) Act, 1986, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki; with a further prayer to not arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the 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 only one case, i.e. FIR No.0630 of 2022, under Section 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, mentioned in the gang chart. Copy of gang chart is annexed as Annexure-2 to the present petition. She next argued that the petitioner has been granted bail in the aforesaid case by the Court below, copy of order is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the petition. Criminal history of ten cases besides the case mentioned in the gang chart against the petitioner, has been explained in para no.7 of the petition. She submits that four cases are of Cow Slaughter Act, in which the petitioner has been granted bail by the Court below. She 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. 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 Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents has submitted that though there appears to be only one case mentioned in the gang chart, but the petitioner has criminal history of ten cases besides the said case. He further submits 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 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.; as well as considering the fact that the petitioner has criminal history of ten cases besides the case mentioned in the gang chart, 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 :- 22.3.2023
Anand Sri./-
