Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20842 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sandeep Singh @ Chandeep
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadaful Islam Jafri,Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Advocate)
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Per: Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.
Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri (Senior Advocate) assisted by Sri Sadaful Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of impugned FIR dated 04.08.2019, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 927 of 2019, under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned FIR has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. The petitioner is neither a director nor shareholder of the alleged company, which was shown in the cases in criminal history of the petitioner. The petitioner was one of the investor of the said company and he has nothing to do with the affairs of the alleged company. The petitioner does not fall within the ambit of gangster, as defined in Section 2(C) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and there was no material to invoke the said Act against the petitioner. Petitioner has neither cheated the victims of case crime no. 1000 of 2018, case crime no. 999 of 2018 and case crime no. 883 of 2018 nor any complaint was made against him for cheating any person. It was further submitted that from the perusal of FIR, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and the impugned FIR is malafide and thus liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed and argued that allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence against the petitioner and thus it could not be said that no case is made out against the petitioner.
There are allegations against the petitioner that he and co- accused have made a gang and co-accused Rajesh Kumar Maurya is gang leader of the same. It was alleged that this gang and its members indulge in anti social activities and commit offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust etc. in order to gain pecuniary benefits. Perusal of record also goes to show that the petitioner was shown involved in three criminal cases under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, wherein allegations have been made that many persons have been cheated by them in the tune of a huge amount by luring them to invest money in the company run by them. Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. 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 Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr. L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. 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 FIR 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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker,J.)
Order Date :- 26.8.2019
A. Tripathi