Dismissed

Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020CRLP/7054/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court held that prima facie cognizable offence was made out and no ground existed for quashing the FIR, though bail was directed to be heard expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the FIR was refused. A direction was issued for the court below to hear and dispose of the bail application expeditiously.

Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7054 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 14.5.2020 registered as Case Crime No.255 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Bithari Chainpur, District Bareilly.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the gang chart against the petitioner three criminal cases have been shown in which he has already been granted bail. The petitioner is neither the gang leader nor he is associated with any gang as member and therefore, no offence under the Gangsters Act is made out against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police authorities as he could not grease their palm. He further submits that there is no evidence that petitioner is associated with any gang but the police is trying to arrest him without any cogent reason.

¶8

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 petitioner, who is associated with other accused persons in committing the offence. The innocence of the petitioner cannot be adjudged at this stage.

¶9

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 petitioner has 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 petitioner

¶10

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.

¶11

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the first information report 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.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 M. Tariq

Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bramhdev Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devang Tayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rohan (Minor) and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others