Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24249 of 2019 Petitioner :- Monu @ Rajesh @ Rajesh Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
(Per: Raj Beer Singh,J.) Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. which has been registered as Crime No. 956/2019, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner merely on the basis of one criminal case and in that case, petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence as has been mentioned in the F.I.R. is made out against the petitioner and, hence, the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. It has further been argued that the provisions of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 cannot be invoked merely on the basis of one criminal case. It was submitted that petitioner is neither the gang leader nor he is associated with any gang as member and, therefore, no offence under the said Act is made out against him.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and the provisions of the Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of the pendency of one case. Further submission is that no case for quashing of the FIR is made out and he has relied upon the case of this Court rendered in Kishan Pal @ K.P. vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2006(2) ADJ 141.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. If there is material to indicate that accused falls within the ambit of 'gangster' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Gangster & Anti-Social Activities Act, the provisions of this Act can be invoked even on the basis of single criminal case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006(56) ACC433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Anand