This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act.
The prayer for quashing of the FIR and staying arrest was dismissed.
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. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1972 of 2019 Petitioner :- Imran Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samir Kumar Garg,Rajeev Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 29.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0364 of 2018, under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 P.S. Arniya District Bulandshahar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against him are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence.
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.
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 petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.2.2019/Ram Murti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act discloses a cognizable offence ex-facie warranting quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Explained¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Explained¶8
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Imran
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Pankaj Naqvi and Umesh Kumar
Parties & counsel
