Tofeek Quereshi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

In this application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the summoning order dated 18.04.2018 as well as the entire proceeding of SST No.07 of 2018, State vs. Tofeek Quereshi, pending in the court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Nainital, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act at Police Station Banbhulpura, District Nainital.

Facts of the case are that in FIR was lodged on 24.10.2017 at Police Station Banbhulpura, District Nainital with the averments that applicant and another one are the persons of criminal nature and they keep on doing the Act of stealing of vehicle etc. Alongwith the report, the gang chart of applicant was also annexed. Accordingly, the report was lodged under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act. The matter resulted into submission of charge-sheet against the applicant and the co-accused. On the basis of said charge-sheet, learned trial court summoned the accused to face the trial.

In the gang chart, following cases have been shown against the applicant which are as under:-

“1. FIR No.58/2002, U/s 457/380/411 IPC-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;

Criminal Case No.158/2002, U/s 110(G) Cr.P.C.- Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;

FIR No.264/2002, U/s 3(1) Gunda Act-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;

FIR No.32/2006, U/s 323/324/504/506 IPC-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;

FIR No.945/2006, U/s 110(G) Cr.P.C.-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;

FIR No.66/2017, U/s U/s 3(1) Gunda Act-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;

FIR No.164/2017, U/s 379/411/420/467/468 IPC-Thana Banbhulpura District Nainital.”

From the perusal of the aforesaid criminal history, it appears that the applicant is habitual of doing the same nature of offence. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the applicant is shown to be the gang leader who makes gang by including different persons for their livelihood. They are involved in Anti Social Activities. Even the statement of the witnesses recorded before the Court have also been annexed by the State. Moreover, this is a matter relating to the year 2017 and now, after lapse of around 8 years, there is hardly any scope of interference and particularly, keeping in mind, the criminal history of the applicant.

Thus, there is hardly any ground of interference, C482 application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.