Allahabad High Court
Vandana Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:1828 Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35481 of 2023 Applicant :- Vandana Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Applicant- Vandana Singh has filed this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge- sheet no.422 of 2023 dated 03 August, 2023 filed in case crime number 488 of 2022, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangester Act, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that through the case crime number 488 of 2022, the applicant has been falsely implicated as a gangester, whereas, she is only doing pairvi of the cases pending against her husband. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant does not fall within the definition of gangester as defined under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, therefore, her prosecution is without any basis. He has referred to the Rule 65 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 and submitted that if a person is erroneously or mistakenly arraigned as a gangster, the competent authority can review its decision and withdraw the prosecution. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the representation submitted by the applicant in terms of Rule 65 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 and argued that since no action had been taken upon the said representation, the applicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.2203 of 2023, wherein vide order dated 21.02.2023, this Court had directed the concerned authority to deal with the representation in accordance with law. He submits that vide decision dated 19.04.2023, the applicant's representation has been dismissed without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel prays that since the competent authority has not passed speaking order, therefore, the interference is warranted by this Court.
Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the case crime number 488 of 2022, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangester Act was registered against the applicant at police station Jiyanpur, district Azamgarh on 03.08.2022 and the same is based upon the gang chart dated 29.07.2022. After registration of the case, the investigation in the case was conducted and finally the charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed. A perusal of the gang chart would reveal that apart from this case, the applicant is involved in two other cases that is bearing case crime number 87 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and case crime number 274 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B, 506 IPC, wherein the applicant is stated to be on bail.
During the course of hearing, this fact is not disputed by learned counsel, who states that indeed the applicant is an accused in two other cases.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a case where the applicant has been erroneously implicated as an accused in the subject case crime number 488 of 2022, and the reliance placed upon Rule 65 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 is also misplaced as a reading of this Rule would show that the District Level Supervision Committee shall have the right to expunge the cases which has been wrongly initiated and are under process before the registration of the first information report. The facts and circumstances of this case would show that the case of the applicant does not fall within the ambit of Rule 65 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.
Apart from it, the representation by the applicant was given much after the filing of the charge sheet, and further the order passed by the competent authority also shows that it has given valid reasons while declining the representation of the applicant.
No other point has been argued by the learned counsel.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of this case, this application is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Raj