Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the First Information Report and the material on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No.0226 of 2020, under Section 2, 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi, with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of one case mentioned in the gang chart vide case crime no.406/2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 257, 258, 272, 307, 147/34 IPC; Sections 60/62 Excise Act; Section 63 Copy Right Act and Section 104 Trade Mark Act, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the present petition, though in the said case he has already been granted bail by learned Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur on 20.10.2020.
He further submits that the petitioner is neither member of any gang nor run any gang involved in anti-social activities. The allegations levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless just for harassment, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, and therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2006) 56 ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others : 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.
Further the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani : (2017) 2 SCC 779 has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies arresting the accused where prayer of quashing the First Information Report has been refused.
After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records and in view of the judgment passed by this court in Misc. Bench No.13298 of 2021; Santosh Batham vs. State of U.P & Ors. decided on 30.06.2021 and in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3938 of 2021; Ritesh Kumar Alias Rikki vs. State of U.P. & Anr. along with bunch of 11 petitions decided on 05.08.2021, the lodging of a first information report on the basis of a single case, is valid and permissible as per the settled principles of law. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations in the impugned first information reports or the cases on the basis of which the impugned first information reports have been lodged. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Saroj Yadav, J.)(Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Arnima