The High Court refused a prayer to quash an FIR registered under the U.P. Gangsters Act, finding no ground for interference as prima facie cognizable offences were made out. The bench directed the lower courts to expeditiously hear bail applications.
The prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused.
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. - 7048 of 2020
Petitioner :- Akeel And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Tripathi,Shantanu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 8.5.2020 registered as Case Crime No232 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, district Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the gang chart one case has been shown against the petitioner no.1 while two cases have been shown against the petitioner no.2. Case crime no.1073 of 2019, under Sections 323,353 IPC and Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention has been registered against both the petitioners in which their arrest was stayed by this Hon'ble Court. Case Crime No.374 of 2019, under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has been registered against the petitioner no.2 in which he was granted bail by the court below. The petitioners are neither the gang leader nor they are associated with any gang as member and therefore, no offence under the Gangsters Act is made out against them and they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police authorities as they could not grease their palm. He further submits that there is no evidence that petitioners are associated with any gang but the police is trying to arrest them without any cogent reason.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations contained in the first information report may not be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioners, who are associated with other accused persons in committing the offence. The innocence of the petitioners cannot be adjudged at this stage.
From the perusal of the first information report, it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. The petitioners have miserably failed to put forth any justifiable rationale for quashing the first information report. 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 petitioners can always appear before the court concerned and make submission there. There is no ground for interference with the first information report. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused. The writ petition sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the first information report and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear before the court concerned and apply 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 :- 10.7.2020 M. Tariq
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdictions has sufficient merit to quash the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishan Pal @ K.P. vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
2006 (54) ACC 1015
Akeel And Another
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
