Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9412 of 2021 Petitioner :- Nizamuddin Malik @ Nizam Malik @ Munim Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Srivastava,Akhilesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.7.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2-Commissioner of Police (Gangster Property Attachment), Commanding Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar.
By the impugned order the respondent no. 2-Commissioner of Police (Gangster Property Attachment), Commanding Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar after rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner has referred the matter to the special court for consideration under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Challenging the same, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already been discharged by the competent court vide order dated 27.7.2021 in Case Crime No. 336 of 2019, under Sections 2(b)(i), 2(b)(iii), 2(b)(iv), 2(b) (viii), 2(b)(ix), 2(b)(xii), 3(1) of the Act and the petitioner is no longer gangster, therefore, no such inquiry under Section 16 of the Act can be made.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the petition and submitted that the inquiry can still be made under Section 16 of the Act regarding acquisition of property as a result of commission of an offence and therefore suitable orders would be passed under Section 17 of the Act and thereafter there is provision of appeal under Section 18 of the Act. Submission is that the writ is not maintainable as the competent court having jurisdiction is yet to consider all such aspects.
We have considered the submissions and have perused the record.
On perusal of record we are not inclined to exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is ample power with the court below to pass appropriate orders in facts and circumstances of the case.
It appears that after passing of the impugned order dated 23.7.2021 although about five months have passed the petitioner has not filed his objection before the court below. The petitioner is at liberty to do so, which may be decided in accordance with law by the court below on its own merits, if not already decided.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Lalit Shukla