Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5135 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dinesh Nishad And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Krishna Roy,Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 2.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No.3 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social (Prevention) Act, P.S. Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the gang chart against the petitioners, only one criminal case each, being crime no.68 of 2018, under Sections 147,148,323,504,506 IPC, P.S. Ghoorpur, District Allahabad has been shown. The petitioners have already been granted bail in the said case and thus, provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act") cannot be invoked merely on the basis of one criminal case. He further argued that the petitioners are neither the gang leader nor they are associated with any gang as member and therefore, no offence under the Gangster Act is made out against them and they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the police authorities. He further submits that there is no evidence that petitioners are associated with any gang but the police is trying to arrest them without any cogent reason.
Per contra learned A. G. A. contended that with a view to break the gangs by punishing the gangsters and to nip in the bud their conspitorial designs it is necessary to advert special provisions for the prevention of criminal activities and also for coping with gangsters and anti-social elements. The petitioners do not appear to be diligent in pursuing the remedy.
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 petitioners have 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply 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 :- 25.2.2019 M. Tariq