JUDGMENT :

GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit in response to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

2. Heard Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State-respondents.

3. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 07.08.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0582 of 2022, under Sections 384, 420, 195, 506, 120-B, 211 IPC, Police Station-Cantt. District-Gorakhpur as well as not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR.

4. Prosecution story in brief is as follows:

Petitioner no. 1 (Nafisa) is leading a Gang as “Nafisa Gang” and in her team, there are five other members (co-accused) namely, Bindrawati (petitioner no. 2), Soni (named accused in the impugned FIR), Aarti (petitioner no. 3), Indrawati (petitioner no. 4) and Tara Chauhan (petitioner no. 5) are the Members of the said Gang and the aforesaid gang is being guided/protected by co-accused, namely, Madhav Tiwari, Advocate (named accused in the impugned FIR). It has further been alleged that aforesaid Gang is involved in filing the several vague Applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./complaint cases as well as FIRs regarding gang rape and various Sections of IPC and SC/ST Act against several innocent persons and by lodging the same, they used to abstract money.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant case is nothing but a counterblast of earlier cases, lodged by the petitioners at various point of time against respondent no. 4 and other accused persons and only with a view to mount pressure upon the petitioners and compromise in the earlier matters, present FIR has been lodged. Even in an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner no. 1 against respondent no. 4/informant (Khalid @ Jiaurrahman) and others regarding an incident, which is said to have taken place on 04.09.2016 at 10:00 a.m., as the aforesaid accused persons were pressurising upon the petitioner no. 1 to compromise the aforesaid case, and when she denied the same, then all the accused persons (respondent no. 4 and other co-accused persons) entered inside her house forcibly and brutally beaten her with ' lathi-danda' and tore her clothes, due to which, she received grievous injuries. The said application was treated as complaint case on 05.01.2017, and, thereafter, statements of the witnesses under Section 200 and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the accused persons including the informant were summoned by the court below on 28.08.2019. Respondent no. 4/informant and his associates are persons of criminal in nature and on several occasions, they had committed serious crime, for which, FIRs had been lodged by the petitioners against them. Petitioners allege false implication. Petitioners never tried to blackmail any person and there is no gang as has been alleged by the respondent no. 4 in the impugned FIR. There is no cogent evidence available on record against the petitioners so as to implicate them in the present case.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that petition itself is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the conduct of the petitioners is required to be seen in the present matter. It has further submitted that informant/respondent no. 4 has been falsely implicated by the petitioners in several cases as has been narrated in the memo of the writ petition and even in one case registered as Case Crime No. 182 of 2016, Final Report has also been submitted by the Investigating Officer concerned, thereafter, a protest petition was filed by the petitioner no. 1 and the said protest petition was allowed and Final R