Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad, holding brief of Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Smiti Sahay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ankit Singh, seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the F.I.R. dated 13.07.2021 lodged by respondent no.3 registered as F.I.R. No.0287 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli, with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that entire allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner are false and baseless. It is stated that no case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is made out against the petitioner and further he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of three criminal cases, which has been registered against him viz Case Crime Nos.137 of 2021, under Sections 147/386/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station Mill Area, District Raibareli; Case Crime No. 138 of 2021, under Sections 147, 386, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli; and Case Crime No. 650 of 2020, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Salon, District Raibareli, a copy of gang-chart is annexed at Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. He further submits that in the aforesaid cases, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by competent Court. He further submits that the petitioner has neither gangster nor gang leader nor the member of gang nor the gang of organizer, hence he does not fall within the ambit of gangster as defined under Section 2(c) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. She has further submitted that in the impugned F.I.R., there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner is the gang leader and he is involved in heinous crime, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that no case against the petitioner under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is made out.
Having examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record, we find that the definition of gangster is made in the Gangsters Act and includes any person who is a member or leader or organizer of a gang or abets or assists in the activities of a gang, which includes violence, threat, intimidation, coercion with the object of disturbing public order or of going any undue advantage for himself or any other person. In the impugned FIR, it is categorically stated that the petitioner has, along with others created terror, beating and fighting with the common people. The impugned FIR, in substance, contains the allegation that the petitioner are taking recourse to public threats and coercion including physical violence to gag the voices of witnesses in cases against him. In the gang chart, three criminal cases have been shown against the petitioner in the offences under the relevant sections of the I.P.C., including Section 147 (punishment for rioting), Section 386 ( Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 504 (provoking breach of peace), Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), Section 307 (attempt to murder). It cannot, therefore, be said that the allegations in the impugned FIR did not disclose any act warranting penalization under the Gangsters Act.
It is well settled that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not adjudicate the correctness of the allegations made in an FIR. The High Court may only intervene in exceptional cases, if the allegations made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to exercise extra-ordinary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Ajit/-