Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26013 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bhole Giri Alias Ambresh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Istiyaq Ali,Ali Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 31.10.2019 and for staying the arrest of the petitioner at Case Crime No.0513 of 2019, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Mungra Badshahpur, District- Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing him on the basis of two cases shown in the gang-chart. In both the cases the petitioner is on bail. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences and hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further contended that the allegations contained in the first information report may not be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioner, who is associated in committing the offence. The innocence of the petitioner cannot be adjudged at this stage.
From the perusal of the first information report, it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. The petitioner has miserably failed to put forth any justifiable rationale for quashing the first information report. In the decision of Kishan Pal @ K.P. vs. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (54) ACC 1015, it has been held that it would not be proper in such matters for High Court to interfere in discretionary writ jurisdiction as the petitioner can always appear before the court concerned and make submission there. There is no ground for interference with the first information report. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused. The writ petition sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the first information report and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with the provision of the Gangsters Act.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Krishna