Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1528 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chand Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Ravikant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. H.M.B. Sinha, learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1, 2 and 3.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging the F.I.R. dated 26.08.2020, lodged by first informant/ respondent-4 Mahesh Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station-Shivkuti, District-Prayagraj and registered as Case Crime No. 278 of 2020 under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Shivkuti, District-Prayagraj.
3 .Perusal of record goes to show that respondent-4, Mahesh Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station-Shivkuti, District- Prayagraj lodged an F.I.R. dated 26.08.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 278 of 2020 under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Shivkuti, District-Prayagraj. In the aforesaid F.I.R. seven persons namely Subhash Patel, Dr. Krishna Lal Patel, Ramesh Chandra Patel i,e, petitioner herein, Ram Singh Pal, Shailendra Kumar Pal, Vidhyakant Patel and Santosh Kumar Bindu have been nominated as named accused.
4. According to gang chart only one case is shown against all accused named in the F.I.R., out of which two persons namely Dr. Krishna Lal Patel and Santosh Kumar Bindu are in jail.
5. Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner contends that simply on the basis of a solitary case, no proceeding under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be initiated. It is next contended that petitioner has criminal antecedents to his credit as he has been nominated as an accused in Case Crime No. 40 of 2019, under Section 419, 520, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Shivkuti, District-Prayagraj. However, petitioner has been enlarged on bail in above mentioned case crime number vide order dated 20.02.2019 by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Allahabad. (copy of bail order is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the recital contained in bail order in support of submission that nothing adverse was recovered from petitioner. It is next contended that impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against petitioner on account of malafide on the part of respondent-4, Mahesh Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station-Shivkuti, District-Prayagraj. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and practising as an advocate in High Court. By no stretch of imagination, allegations made in the F.I.R. can be presumed to be true. On the cumulative strength of above, it is urged that impugned F.I.R. giving rise to this writ petition cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed by this Court.
6. Per contra Mr. H.M.B. Sinha, learned A.G.A has opposed this writ petition. He contends that proceedings under U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be initiated on the basis of a solitary case also. He has then invited attention of court to the order of bail dated 20.02.2019 wherein concerned Court has recorded a categorical finding that
the Car in which petitioner and other co-accused persons (pertaining to Case Crime No. 40 of 2019, under Section 419, 520, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Shivkuti, District- Prayagraj) were travelling, was searched and various incriminating material were discovered from the said car. In the light of above, it cannot be presumed that petitioner is innocent. It is also submitted the as per the gang chart, two of the named accused are already in jail in respect of Case Crime No. 40 of 2019, under Section 419, 520, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Shivkuti, District-Prayagraj. He therefore, contends that no good ground is made out for quashing of F.I.R. in the light of law laid down by Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426.
7. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, prima facie, we are of view that from perusal of F.I.R. , it cannot be said that no cognizabole offence is made out against petitioner. For invoking provisions of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, it is not necessary that accused person should be a habitual offender. It is by now well settled that even a solitary case can form the basis for inisiating proceeding under the provisions U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Apart from above, from perusal of bail order relied upon by learned counsel for petitiioner, it is apparent that petitioner along others were involved in a crime which is unbecoming of a responsible citizen. Recital contained in the bail order goes to contradict the innocence of the petitioner as alleged by learned counsel for petitioner.
8 For the facts and reasons noted above, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. The present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.5.2021 YK