Mahendra Patel vs State of U.P.

K.N. Sinha, J.—Heard leaned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the charge sheet of case crime No. 256 of 2002 and staying the proceedings in Special Trial No. 549 of 2003, pending before the court of Special Judge (Gangster Act), Varanasi.

The brief facts, giving rise to this application, are that one Deen Dayal, who was inimical with the applicant, lodged a report under Sections 302/201 I.P.C., which was registered as case crime No. 100 of 2002 at Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi in which the applicant was not named as accused. The said Deen Dayal lodged another report against applicant Mahendra Patel as case Crime No. 179 of 2002 at police station Chaubeypur, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. on 18.5.2002 and then again on 23.8.2002, under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi. The total cases shown against applicant Mahendra Patel are above three cases. On the strength of said cases the police implicated him in the Gangster Act. The learned A.G.A filed counter affidavit on the ground that Deen Dayal complainant has no enmity and the name of the applicant came into light during the investigation. The State has denied the enmity of Deen Dayal with the applicant.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and the gang chart. There is no dispute about this fact that in all the three cases Deen Dayal is complainant. The applicant was also not named in the case u/s 302 I.P.C and other two cases are of trivial nature. The other member of alleged gang is none except the brother of the applicant. Though the F.I.R. of the Gangster Act has been so written that some ingredient of Gangster Act may come in but if the applicant was really of a gang member or has formed any gang, he would have committed much more offence which were disturbing the public order or would have been of serious nature.

As mentioned earlier, the complainant of the three cases is one and the same person. No other person of any village or any police station ever lodged any complaint against the applicant. Moreover in the case u/s 302 I.P.C he is not named in the F.I.R. The other two cases are of very trivial nature. Thus, the prosecution is against provision of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act and no offence under the Gangster Act is made out. The charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

Consequently, the application is allowed. The proceedings of Special Trial No. 549 of 2003 is hereby quashed. The prosecution of the applicant under the said Gangster Act is set aside. If the applicant is on bail, he need not surrender and his surety stands discharged.