The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the Gangster Act, noting the prima facie cognizable offence. However, the court directed that any bail application filed by the petitioner must be heard expeditiously.
Prayer to quash impugned FIR refused; direction for expedient hearing of bail application if filed.
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. - 6914 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kaloo Shivhare Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Ram Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 19.02.2020 registered as Case Crime No.038 of 2020, under Sections-2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Gangster Act”), Police Station-Kurara, District-Hamirpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of Case Crime No.241 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Binwar, DistrictHamirpur and Case Crime No.140 of 2019 under Section 18/20 of NDPS Act, Police Station-Kurara, DistrictHamirpur, a case under Gangster Act has been registered against petitioner. It is further contended that in both cases, petitioner had already been granted bail. It is further contended that there is one NCR which is recorded in the gang chart in which investigation is still going on. The petitioner is neither a member of any gang nor he is a gang leader, as such, the impugned FIR lodged against petitioner deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA contended that the allegations contained in the FIR may not be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioner, who is associated with other accused persons in committing the offence. The innocence of the petitioner cannot be adjudged at this stage.
From the perusal of the FIR, it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. The petitioner has miserably failed to put forth any justifiable rationale for quashing FIR. In the decision of Kishan Pal @ K.P. vs. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (54) ACC 1015 , it has been held that it would not be proper in such matters for High Court to interfere in discretionary writ jurisdiction as the petitioner can always appear before the court concerned and make submission there. There is no ground for interference with the FIR. Therefore, prayer for quashing the impugned FIR is refused. The writ petition sans any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the FIR and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with the provision of the Gangsters Act.
Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Manish Himwan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR under the Gangster Act based on the petitioner's claim of not being a gang member or leader.
Whether there is a prima facie cognizable offence on the face of the FIR warranting continued investigation.
Whether the prayer for quashing the FIR can be dismissed while directing expedient bail hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishan Pal @ K.P. vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
Kishan Pal @ K.P. vs. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (54) ACC 1015
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kaloo Shivhare
State Of U.P.
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
