Saddam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2025A482/4785/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of Gangster Act proceedings, relying on an earlier identical application where proceedings had been stayed for non-compliance of the Gangster Act and Rules 2021. The court connected the application with that case and stayed the proceedings qua the applicants till the next date.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in issue qua the applicants stayed till next date of listing; application connected with Application U/S 482 No.63 of 2025.

Saddam and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4785 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Saddam And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav,Susheel Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, at the very outset, has pointed out that this Court had already shown indulgence in respect of the other gang member namely Pappu @ Akleem Khan in Application U/S 482 No.63 of 2025 and had passed an order on 7.1.2025 whereby, the proceedings of the criminal case had been stayed.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that the case of the present applicants is identical to that of the applicant of Application U/S 482 No.63 of 2025.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has not disputed that the case of the present applicants is identical to that of the applicant of Application U/S 482 No.63 of 2025.

¶9

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and I find that in identical circumstances, in respect of other gang member of the same gang i.e. Pappu @ Akleem Khan, this Court had passed an order on 7.1.2025 in Application U/S 482 No.63 of 2025, in following terms:-

¶10

"Heard.

¶11

The present application has been filed for the following main relief(s):

¶12

"i). to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 03.12.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 107/2023, under section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 pertaining to Police Station Haidarganj, District Ayodhya as well as the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Ayodhya, Ayodhya in Gangster Case No. 40/2024 (State of U.P. Versus Pappu @ Akleem & Others) including entire proceedings thereof qua the applicant, as contained in Annexure No.1&2 to this application."

¶13

For the purposes of interim protection and entertaining the present application based upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16258 of 2023 (Sanny Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P and 2 Others), counsel for the applicant says that the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court for the reason that after taking note of the non-compliance of the relevant provisions of Gangster Act as also the rules made thereunder namely Gangster Rules, 2021, the Division Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings and in the instant case also, there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, accordingly, interference in the matter is required.

¶14

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶15

Accordingly, the proceedings, in issue, qua the applicant shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.

¶16

List alongwith APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8019 of 2024 on 20.01.2025 as fresh.

¶17

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. for the State may file response to the present application."

¶18

Since the case of the present applicants is identical to that of the applicant of Application U/S 482 No.63 of 2025 therefore, let this application be connected and listed with Application U/S 482 No.63 of 2025.

¶19

It is further provided that till the next date of listing, the proceedings, in issue, qua the applicants shall remain stayed.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.6.2025 Salim

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saddam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kalavati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Beena Tewari @ Bittan and 4 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dhawleshwar Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Rai @ Dharmendra Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Sandeep Manwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another