Dismissed

Mahesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2022A482/12728/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant sought quashing of a summoning order and proceedings under the U.P. Gangsters Act, arguing false implication via limited charges. The court held the FIR correct based on the charge sheet and distinguished the applicant from co-accused with stayed proceedings due to multiple offences shown. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No interim protection order was granted; the application to quash the summoning order and proceedings was dismissed.

Mahesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12728 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shyamu Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sushma Soni, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, the applicant made prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.11.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Mathura and proceedings of GST No. 1922 of 2020 (CNR No. UPMT 01-008171-2020) (State of U.P. Vs. Rajvir Gurjar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 307 of 2019, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated under the provisions of Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act on the basis of two cases under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and those cases relates to forgery and cheating, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is gangster and indulged in ante social activities. He further submitted that in respect of the other three accused persons although they were made accused in the present case on the basis of solitary case, this Court stayed the proceedings, therefore, applicant should also be similarly treated and at least interim protection order may be given in the present case also. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that except the two cases, which were shown in the gang charge, there is no other case either pending against the applicant or applicant is accused in any other criminal case.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that it cannot be said that applicant cannot be made accused in cases relates to provisions of Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and there was specific allegation against the applicant for cheating and forgery, therefore, under the provisions of Gangsters Act, FIR has been rightly lodged against the applicant and there is no illegality in the impugned charge-sheet filed against the applicant and as far as the stay order passed in respect of other co-accused persons

¶9

are concerned, their case are distinguishable from the case of applicant as against them only solitary case was imposed, therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. The gang chart of the case shows that as many as 18 persons were made accused in the present case. The gang chart shows that there was a gang of 18 persons, who operates for the purpose to cheat the common public and after proper investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the present case against the applicant, as during investigation his complicity in the present case was found correct by the Investigating Office and further there are two cases have been shown in the gang chart against the applicant of the same nature, which shows that applicant indulged in ante social activities by cheating common people and further the case of applicant distinguishable from the case of the other co-accused, namely, Alok Kumar Upadhyay, Ravendra Singh and Chintanand @ Chetan as their case have been stayed by this Court on the ground that against them solitary case was shown by the prosecution in the gang chart. As from the perusal of the FIR and the other evidence on record, prima facie offence under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act is made out against the applicant and his case is also distinguishable from the case of other accused persons, who are named above, accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 AK Pandey

¶12

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.06.13 17:26:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobhi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharamveer Singh Gurjar Vs Alok Kumar Tyagi

Kaushal Kishor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khalid and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahroz Mohammad Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vijay Giri and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another