Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5140 of 2019 Petitioner :- Monu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 17.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No.22 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Khandauli, District Agra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the gang chart against the petitioner, only one criminal case, being crime no.678 of 2018, under Section 420 IPC and Section 66,66-B I.T. Act and Section 3/9 of U.P. Public Examination Act, P.S. Khandauli, District AGra has been shown. The petitioner has 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 petitioner is neither the gang leader nor he is associated with any gang as member and therefore, no offence under the Gangster Act is made out against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police authorities. He further submits that there is no evidence that petitioner is associated with any gang but the police is trying to arrest him without any cogent reason.
Learned A.G.A. has argued that accused belong to criminal background having a case in gangchart which relates to involvement in leaking papers of examination fraudulently, hence prima facie the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence and the provisions of the Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of the pendency of solitary case.The petitioner does 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 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 :- 25.2.2019 M. Tariq