Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raju And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2494 of 2021 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raju And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed seeking following prayers:-
" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 1.1.2021 in Case Crime No. 01 of 2021, Under Section 2/3 Gangster Act and Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not arrest the petitioners in pursuance of FIR dated 1.1.2021 Case Crime No. 01 of 2021, Under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, and Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra."
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed only on the basis of a solitary case U/s 3/4 Public Gambling Act. Learned counsel further submitted that all the petitioners are enlarged on bail by the court below vide order dated 4.1.2020. A false allegation has been made against them while prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the FIR lodged by the complainant. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
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 petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioners i.e. Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raju, Arun Kumar, Durgesh @ Durgesh Yadav and Satyarth @ Sonu Yadav appear or surrender before the Court concerned and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021 Saurabh