Two criminal writ petitions challenging police proceedings designating petitioners as gang leaders and file under Regulation 253 of UP Police were dismissed. The Court distinguished a cited precedent involving privacy in criminal displays, finding the issues and facts different.
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.
Judgement reserved on 11.05.2022 Judgement delivered on 12.07.2022
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9845 of 2020
Petitioner :- Nihal Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Mishra,Arun Kumar Mishra,Prem Prakash Yadav(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
with
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11325 of 2020
Petitioner :- Dilip Prajapati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Goswami,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Rohit Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These writ petitions have been filed by quashing the proceeding taken by the police authorities of District Prayagraj describing the petitioners as gang leader (D-46) and depicting them as registered gangster. Challenge in the writ petition is also to the circular for preparation of gang-register. Further prayer has been made for declaring Regulation 253 of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation, ultra virus, being violative of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the controversy is covered by the decision of this Court in Jeeshan @ Jaanu and another, Balveer Singh Yadav, Doodh Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. and four others being Writ Petition No.10974 of 2020, 13521 of 2020, 14300 of 2020. The said judgement is dated 29.01.2021. A copy of the judgement has been produced for perusal.
Perused the judgement over which reliance has been placed by the petitioners. In the judgement, have common issue, violation of right to privacy on account of top10 criminals displayed at different police stations. The judgement has set aside the policy/circular dated 06.07.2020 and directed the Director General of Police to remove the names/identities of top-10 criminals alongwith criminal antecedents from the flysheet board.
The question involved in the writ petition is entirely different from the question decided in the judgement cited. The question/issue involved in the present writ petitions is for quashing of proceedings taken by the police authorities of district Prayagraj, describing the petitioners as gang-leader (D-46) and depicting as registered gangsters. Since the facts of the present case is entirely different from the facts considered in the judgement over which reliance has been placed, as
such, the judgement cited is not applicable in the present case. Besides the action taken by the police authorities has the sanction of law.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 12.7.2022 SKD
2
Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.07.12 15:53:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether quashing of proceedings treating petitioners as gang leaders and registered gangsters can rely on a precedent regarding privacy in top-10 criminal flysheets.
Whether Regulation 253 of Uttar Pradesh Police is ultra vires Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether police actions to designate specific categories of criminals as gangsters are lawful.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jeeshan @ Jaanu and anotherReferred¶11
Jeeshan @ Jaanu and another, Balveer Singh Yadav, Doodh Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. and four others being W.P. Nos. 10974 of 2020, 13521 of 2020, 14300 of 2020
Nihal Kumar
State Of U.P.
Dilip Prajapati
State Of U.P.
Anjani Kumar Mishra
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
