IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, JJ.
Jitesh Jha And Others – Petitioner
Versus
State Of UP And Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. -13813 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 13744 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 13746 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 13814 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 14502 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 14622 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 14651 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 14691 of 2024
Decided On : 21-09-2024
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2), 111(2)(b), 111(3) - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - FIR quashed - Allegations of organized crime and unlawful activities against petitioners - Court held that sufficient grounds exist for the charges based on prior cognizance taken in related cases - Retrospective application of provisions upheld. (Paras 5, 6, 18, 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - The court must assess whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence - The existence of prior charge sheets and cognizance taken is crucial in determining the validity of the FIR. (Paras 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitions were filed seeking quashing of FIRs alleging organized crime and unlawful activities related to state property, with prior criminal histories of the accused being highlighted. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIRs disclosed cognizable offences and upheld the retrospective application of the B.N.S. provisions based on prior charge sheets. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIRs disclosed cognizable offences and the applicability of the B.N.S. provisions retrospectively. (Paras 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existence of prior charge sheets and cognizance taken within the preceding ten years suffices to invoke the provisions of the B.N.S., including retrospective application. (Paras 24, 25)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. In the bunch of above cases, two petitions filed by filed by petitioner, Sandeep Shukla, being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14622 of 2024 (Sandeep Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others) and 14651 of 2024 (Sandeep Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others) are requested to be dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioner has been arrested. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 14622 of 2024 and 14651 of 2024 stand dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Learned A.G.A. points out that the petitioner Kamla Ariel and three other accused, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 14502 of 2024 (Kamla Ariel and others vs. State of U.P. and others), 14691 of 2024 (Kamla Ariel and others vs. State of U.P. and others), have already been arrested. None appears for them and also no prayer for adjournment has been made on their behalf. However, for the last few weeks notice is being placed on the notice board that all passed over and date fixed matters shall be taken up in the first call. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 14502 of 2024 and 14691 of 2024 stand dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. We now proceed to consider the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 13813 of 2024 (Jitesh Jha and others vs. State of U.P. and others), 13744 of 2024 (Harendra Kumar Masih vs. State of U.P. and others), 13814 of 2024 (Jitesh Jha and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and 13746 of 2024 (Harendra Kumar Masih vs. State of U.P. and others).
4. Heard Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading petition as well as the connected petition filed by petitioner Jitesh Jha and others; Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in the connected petitions filed by petitioner Harendra Kumar Masih and; Sri Manish Goyal, learned A.A.G. assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State.
5. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 13813 of 2024 (Jitesh Jha and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and 13744 of 2024 (Harendra Kumar Masih vs. State of U.P. and others) have been filed seeking quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 28.7.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 156 of 2024, under Sections 329(4), 61(2), 111(2)(b), 111(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "B.N.S."). and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.
6. The impugned F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024 has been lodged by the area Lekhpal with the allegations that the nazul land with regard to Plot Nos. 69, 69A, 69B, situated in his area, is State property and the accused persons including petitioners tried to take forceful possession of Plot Nos. 69A and 69B whose lease has already been expired.
7. The first information report being Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 was lodged by one Samuwal Gurudev Singh against twelve specifically named accused along with 20-25 unknown persons with the allegations that on 28.7.2024 when the informant went to Church for prayer in the meanwhie at about 9:30 PM the colleague of co-accused Harendra Kumar Masih including the petitioner came to the school, namely, Mary A Merriman School and they have broken lock of the door and entered into the property of the informant and they have also broken the lock of the door of his room and looted valuable articles and also broken the household articles and they also misbehave with the wife of the informant and demanded Rs. 5 lacs as Goonda Tax and thereafter police personnel reached on the spot and saved them.
8. The State has filed short counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13744 of 2024 and the parties agreed that the affidavit in one case would suffice. In the aforesaid affidavit it is clearly stated that during course of investigation in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024 Sections 111(2) Kha, 111(3), 61(2) of B.N.S. were added. It is also mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit that in Case Crime No. 157 of 2024 during course of investigation Sections 111(2
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
The court upheld the retrospective application of the B.N.S. provisions, confirming that prior charge sheets and cognizance taken are sufficient to establish cognizable offences under organized crime....
The absence of legally admissible evidence against the accused, particularly regarding organized crime, is crucial for granting bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The court established that organized crime under Section 111(1) of the BNS requires evidence of continuing unlawful activity and prior charge sheets, and the absence of such evidence negates the appl....
(1) Organised Crime – For the purpose of organised crime, there has to be continuing unlawful activity – There cannot be continuing unlawful activity unless at least two charge-sheets are found to ha....
Bail application – Organised Crime – To attract offence under Section 111 (1) of BNS it is imperative that a group of two or more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful activity prohibited by law....
(1) Organised crime – There has to be a continuing unlawful activity carried out by an organized crime syndicate, for which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent court within....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.