Rohit Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition challenging the Gang Chart and FIR under the Gangsters Act. Court adjourned to examine counter-affidavit with material basis for the Gang Chart and FIR within two weeks.
What the court decided
Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 191 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rohit Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the sole criminal case mentioned in the gang chart in which it was alleged that the petitioner is involved, has been quashed by this High Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. albeit on the basis of a compromise, therefore, now, there is no material on the basis of which the Gang Chart and impugned F.I.R. based thereon against the petitioner can be sustained. It is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
Let Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned A.G.A. file counter affidavit annexing therewith the entire material which is the basis for preparation of the Gang Chart and lodging of the impugned F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act against the petitioner and demonstrate as to what is the material as of now against the petitioner for investigation in terms of the impugned F.I.R., within a period of two weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Gang Chart and FIR based thereon against the petitioner can be sustained given that the sole underlying case was quashed by the High Court.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rohit Agarwal
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Rajan Roy
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLP/191/2024
All orders in this case
5 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court