Disposed

Humayaun and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2023CRLP/16565/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad declined the petitioners' prayer to quash an FIR lodged under the U.P. Gangster Act, 1986, holding that cognizable offences were made out. The court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the FIR declined and refused; petitioners directed to move bail application.

Humayaun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203487-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16565 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Humayaun And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ehtesham Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioners, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 28.09.2023 registered as Case Crime No.0380 of 2023, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that only on the basis of one single case against the petitioner no.1 and two cases against the petitioner no.2, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners under the Gangsters Act, 1986 and in which the petitioners had already been granted bail. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a number of legal and factual aspects of the matter.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and there is no occasion or reason to quash the FIR in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the FIR is declined and refused.

¶11

However, it is open for the petitioners, if so advised, they shall move proper bail application before the appropriate forum, within ten days from today which shall be decided in accordance with

¶12

law.

¶13

It is also made clear that the Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court concerned is expected to apply its robust and judicial discretion in deciding the bail application as early as possible.

¶14

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Zafar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Humayaun and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Humayaun and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer Ahmad @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amanulla Khan and 7 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ram Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Istkhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others