Allahabad High Court

Heard Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State. The present writ petition has been filed for quashment of impugned First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.0142 of 2025, under Sections 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Rajgarh, District Mirzapur. Briefly put the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner is member of a gang which is engaged in organised smuggling of drugs. Learned AGA for the State submits that prima facie offence is disclosed against the petitioner which warrants investigation into the same. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Drugs are menace to the society. Such crimes have to be effectively curbed by adoption of legal measures. The investigation is on foot. Any stay on the arrest will impede the investigation. There is a strong possibility that the accused will misuse the judicial protection afforded by the stay order and will attempt to cause destruction of the evidence. The stay of arrest at this stage will be in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of 2 CRLP No. 24267 of 2025 Maharashtra and others reported at (2021) 19 SCC 401. In Bhajan Lal (Supra) the Supreme Court held as under: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private 3 CRLP No. 24267 of 2025 and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." The Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) expounded the law as under: "33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or ‘no coercive steps to be adopted’ and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or ‘no coercive steps’ either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." In this wake, the relief sought for quashing of the F.I.R. is accordingly declined. The writ petition is dismissed. November 26, 2025 Kuldeep (Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)

Heard Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State. The present writ petition has been filed for quashment of impugned First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.0142 of 2025, under Sections 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Rajgarh, District Mirzapur. Briefly put the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner is member of a gang which is engaged in organised smuggling of drugs. Learned AGA for the State submits that prima facie offence is disclosed against the petitioner which warrants investigation into the same. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Drugs are menace to the society. Such crimes have to be effectively curbed by adoption of legal measures. The investigation is on foot. Any stay on the arrest will impede the investigation. There is a strong possibility that the accused will misuse the judicial protection afforded by the stay order and will attempt to cause destruction of the evidence. The stay of arrest at this stage will be in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of 2 CRLP No. 24267 of 2025 Maharashtra and others reported at (2021) 19 SCC 401. In Bhajan Lal (Supra) the Supreme Court held as under: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private 3 CRLP No. 24267 of 2025 and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." The Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) expounded the law as under: "33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or ‘no coercive steps to be adopted’ and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or ‘no coercive steps’ either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." In this wake, the relief sought for quashing of the F.I.R. is accordingly declined. The writ petition is dismissed. November 26, 2025 Kuldeep (Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)