Court refused to quash the FIR under U.P. Gangster Act as prima facie cognizable offence was made out. Prayers stayed for bail application within thirty days.
The prayer to quash the FIR is refused; the petitioner must appear or surrender within thirty days to apply for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 36749 of 2018
Petitioner :- Safayddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the first information report dated 26.10.2018 registered in Case Crime No. 341 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kothibhar, District Maharajganj.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 has lodged the FIR against the petitioner under the aforesaid offences in order to cause sheer harassment. According to the gang chart, one case has been shown against the petitioner. As the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in the case, the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satyapal vs. State of U.P. and others , 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not exfacie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is involved in the serious offences hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.
In the light of above observations, this petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018
Bhanu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first information report under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be quashed.
Whether there are statutory restrictions operating on the power of the police to investigate the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satyapal vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶8
Satyapal vs. State of U.P. and others
State of Haryana Vs. BhajanlalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Safayddin
State Of U.P.
Naheed Ara Moonis
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
