Dismissed

Arshad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2018CRLP/14090/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a PIL petition challenging the quashing of an FIR under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. Following settled principles from Ajit Singh v. State of U.P. and Satya Pal v. State of U.P., the Court held that no interference with investigation is possible when a cognizable offence is ex-facie discernible.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR is dismissed. No interference with the investigation or arrest of the petitioners is allowed.

Arshad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14090 of 2018 Petitioner :- Arshad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Datta Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶2

Heard Sri K.D.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K.Sand, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.

¶3

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 20.5.2018, registered as case crime No.307 of 2018, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kasya, District Kushi Nagar.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He next argued that the present Gangster Act has been imposed on the petitioners on the basis of two criminal cases in which they have been released o bail. He argued that the petitioners are neither members of any gang nor they run any gang involved in anti social activities. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents except the cases shown in the Gang Chart. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶5

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.

¶6

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.

¶7

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶8

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶9

Order Date :- 29.5.2018/NS

Arshad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Premchand Jaisal Vs State of U.P.

Prabhat Mohan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Haneef Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sadanand and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others