Rajesh Kushwaha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rajesh Kushwaha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR refused; petitioner directed to surrender before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, to be considered per the settled law in Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh; failing surrender, coercive action to follow and no further time to be granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 224 of 2025 (U.P. Gangsters Act provisions) should be quashed on the petitioner's contention that no offence against him is disclosed and the prosecution was instituted mala fide to cause harassment. +1 more

Court's answer

From the perusal of the material on record and the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

All submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; only a prima facie view is to be taken in light of the cited Supreme Court decisions.

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused.ratio¶14
If the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer shall be considered and decided per the settled law in Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶15
If the petitioner does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (DB) disposed of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12758 of 2025 (Rajesh Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 others) challenging FIR No. 224 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025 of P.S. Ramgarh Taal, District Gorakhpur, laid under Sections 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi), 2(B)(ii)/3 and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Holding that the submissions raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Article 226 and that a prima facie offence could not be said to be absent (assessed in light of R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical), the Court refused quashing of the FIR, directed the petitioner to surrender within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail to be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)), failing which coercive action would follow with no further time granted. Learned A.G.A. informed that six cases stand registered against the petitioner.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103103-DB

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12758 of 2025

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar Mishra,Deepak Kumar Singh,Vikrant Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

List has been revised.

None responds on behalf of respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned A.G.A informs that there are six cases registered against the petitioner.

By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the First Information Report No. 224 of 2025, dated 08.04.2025, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajesh Kushwaha and others, under Sections- 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi), 2(B)(ii)/3 and 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Ramgarh Taal, District- Gorakhpur.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in

cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused.

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.

However, in case, the petitioner does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Rohit

(Avnish Saxena,J.) (Siddharth,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad