Dismissed

Prashant Kumar Alias Gaurav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019CRLP/9894/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the Gangster Act. It held that prima facie the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and no statutory restriction bars the invocation of the Act based on a single case.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no ground exists for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

Prashant Kumar Alias Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9894 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Alias Gaurav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Sharma,Sharad Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 14.3.2019, registered as Case Crime No.243/2019, under Sections 2/3 of the Gangster Act, P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Gangster Act has been invoked against the petitioner on the basis of solitary false case, i.e,. Case Crime No.656/2018, under Sections 420/386/407/411/413/266/34 IPC in which 43 persons have been made accused, petitioner has been enlarged on bail in the said case by this Court on 5.7.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24849/2018, FIR is malafidely motivated, liable to be quashed.

¶8

The learned A.G.A has opposed the submission for quashing the FIR, which discloses cognizable offences and submitted that there is no bar to invoke Gangster Act on the basis of solitary case, coupled with the fact that no protection has been granted to co-accused Satish, the alleged owner.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 Chandra

Prashant Kumar Alias Gaurav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Alias Gaurav v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Nagender Rai and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ram Shankar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Mohan @ Dhanu Kharwar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and 5 Others

Uma Shankar @ Umesh Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others