Jagmohan @ Tannu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Jagmohan @ Tannu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR refused; protective direction granted that if the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, the prayer shall be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); failure to appear within the period attracts coercive action, with no further time for surrender.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 28.05.2025 in Case Crime No. 0544 of 2025 (PS Baradari, District Bareilly) under Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is liable to be quashed on the contention that no offence is disclosed and the prosecution was instituted mala fide to harass the petitioner. +2 more

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

The submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226; at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused.ratio¶10
In view of the entirety of facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 60 days; upon surrender and application for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer shall be considered and decided per the settled law laid by this Court in Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and the Apex Court judgment in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶11
If the petitioner does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 47; Divisional Bench: Siddharth and Avnish Saxena, JJ.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13012 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:100810-DB), order dated 1.7.2025. Writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of FIR dated 28.05.2025 in Case Crime No. 0544 of 2025, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, registered under Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Held: the petitioner's contentions (documents/statements advanced to show no offence disclosed and mala fide prosecution) involve disputed questions of fact and appraisal of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226; from the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out at this stage; only a prima facie view is taken in light of R.P. Kapur (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (Para-10) (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283). Prayer for quashing the FIR refused. Petitioner directed to surrender before the court below within 60 days; on surrender and application for bail/anticipatory bail, the prayer to be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); non-appearance invites coercive action; no further time for surrender. Petition finally disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100810-DB

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13012 of 2025

Petitioner :- Jagmohan @ Tannu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atharva Dixit,Pranav Tiwary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

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

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

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 FIR dated 28.05.2025 lodged in Case Crime No. 0544 of 2025, under Sections- 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Baradari, District- Bareilly.

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 :- 1.7.2025 Rohit

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

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