1. Heard Shri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.N. Tilahari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ram Chandra, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.01.2023 registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0002 of 2023, under Sections 2(b)(i), 3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Neemgaon, District Khiri.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of three cases i.e. F.I.R./Case Crime No.264 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Neemgaon, District Kheri, F.I.R./Case Crime No.140 of 2020, under Sections 506, 452, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Neemgaon, District Kheri and F.I.R./Case Crime No.1012 of 2022, under Sections 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar, District Kheri, mentioned in the gang chart. Copy of gang chart is annexed as Annexure-2 to the present petition. In which, out of two cases i.e. F.I.R./Case Crime No.264 of 2017 and F.I.R./Case Crime No.140 of 2020, the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent Court but there appears to be one case i.e. F.I.R./Case Crime No.1012 of 2022 is pending against the petitioner and the impugned F.I.R. under the Gangster Act has been lodged on 01.01.2022, which is just an abuse of process of law. He further argued that apart from cases mentioned in the gang chart, petitioner has criminal history of 9 cases, which is mentioned in para No.9 of the instant writ petition. Out of criminal history of 9 cases, in seven cases, the petitioner has been acquitted but there appears to be two cases pending against the petitioner i.e. Case Crime No.106 of 1992, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Neemgaon, District Kheri and Case Crime No.268 of 2017, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Neemgaon, District Kheri. He next argued that the petitioner is neither member nor run any gang involved in anti-social activities, hence he does not fall within the ambit of gangster as defined under Section 2(c) of the Gangster Act. He further argued that co-accused Rajesh Kumar, as Per F.I.R., Rajesh Bansal, against whom U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 has been invoked, on the basis of one case mentioned in the gang chart, has been granted interim protection by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.250 of 2023. It has further been argued that the petitioner has not committed any offence and, prima facie, no case is made out against him, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. He has further submitted that the Gangster Act can be invoked even on the basis of single case. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P. and others [2022 Law Suit (SC) 535].

5. After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as considering the criminal history of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.

6. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of coaccused Rajesh Kumar as per F.I.R. Rajesh Bansal.