✦ Allahabad High Court

Mintoo @ Devendra Shekhar Sharma v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 3167 of 2026RAJEEV MISRA, LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA3 min read

Case at a glance

Judgment

: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1.

Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, the learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA representing State- respondents 1, 2, 3.

2.

Perused the record.

3.

Petitioner Mintoo @ Devendra Shekhar Sharma has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 03.12.2025 lodged by first informant/respondent 4, Janardan Prasad, Station House Officer, Police Station Chhawni, District Basti and registered as Case Crime No. 0287 of 2025, under section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Chhawni, District Basti.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned FIR submits that the decision taken by the State-respondents to launch criminal prosecution against petitioner in terms of section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is not only illegal but also unjust and arbitrary. To buttress his submission the learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of Court to the document occurring at page 39 of the paper book and with reference to the same he submits that though there was joint meeting of minds but no reason has been recorded by the authorities concerned necessitating/warranting criminal 2 CRLP No. 3167 of 2026 prosecution of petitioner under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. To the contrary only a bald conclusion has been recorded therein. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the absence of any reason recorded by the competent authority sustainable in law for initiating criminal prosecution of petitioner under section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the decision so taken by the State- respondents to launch criminal prosecution against petitioner under above mentioned Act cannot be sustained.

5.

To buttress his submissions he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kamalveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2025 SCC OnLine All 3141.

6.

On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned FIR is, therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

7.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1, 2, 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. However the learned AGA could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner as noted herein above with reference to the record at this stage.

8.

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents and upon perusal of records, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

9.

Notice on behalf of State respondents 1,2 and 3 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

10.

Issue notice to first informant, respondent 4.

11.

Steps for service upon first informant, respondent 4 shall be taken by the learned counsel for petitioner within the time period prescribed under the Rules of Court.

12.

All the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits within six weeks. 3 CRLP No. 3167 of 2026

13.

Petitioner will have two weeks, thereafter, to file his rejoinder affidavits.

14.

List this writ petition for admission before appropriate Bench on 06.05.2026.

15.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition, as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that petitioner shall not be arrested FIR

03.12.2025 lodged informant/respondent 4, Janardan Prasad, Station Houser Officer, Police Station Chhawni, District Basti and registered as Case Crime No. 0287 of 2025, under section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Chhawni, District Basti until further orders of this Court.

16.

The matter shall not be treated as tied up/part heard to this Bench.

17.

Assignment, if any, stands discharged. March 11, 2026 Arti (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Allahabad High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 3167 of 2026). ← Search more judgments