Disposed

Rajan @ Rajachandra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020CRLP/1903/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected quashing of an FIR under the UP Gangster Act. However, to maintain parity with a co-accused, the court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner until the police file their final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. Order effective until cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

No coercive steps against the petitioner to be taken till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to cooperation in investigation.

Rajan @ Rajachandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1903 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajan @ Rajachandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard Sri S N Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of FIR dated 12.12.2019, registered vide Crime No.678/2019, against the petitioner and two other persons under Sections 2/3 of the U P Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was implicated in a case, being Crime No.310 of 2019, relating to counterfeit liquor; however, in the said case, he was granted bail. It has been argued that in the case of similarly placed co-accused Ratan, an interim order has already been passed on 18.2.2020 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2256 of 2020.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposes the petition. He, however, is not in a position to dispute the fact that the case of the present petitioner is identical to that of co-accused Ratan in whose favour, protection order has already been passed by this Court.

¶8

Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, we are of the view that no case for quashment of FIR is made out.

¶9

However, further considering the fact that in the case of coaccused protection has been granted, maintaining parity, it is directed that till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) of Cr PC in the aforesaid Crime number, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶10

It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioner cooperates in the investigation.

¶11

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 RKK/-

Rajan @ Rajachandra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan @ Rajachandra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muzaffar Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Palat Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Medhavi Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shariq Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shraddha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others