2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 1894
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
Vinay Kumar Lath Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 977 of 2016
4th October, 2016.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. SIDDHARTHA DAVE, Ms. JEMTIBEN A.O., Mr. SAJITH. P
Constitution of India, Arts.226, 134 - Quashing of FIR - Prayer for - High Court dismissed the petition without considering material on record in proper perspective - No cogent reason given by High Court for such order - Impugned order set aside, matter remitted back to be heard afresh. (Para 4)
3. It appears that the High Court, without considering the materials on record in the proper perspective, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 911 of 2013 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, in P.S. Cantt. Nagar, District Gorakhpur.
4. After perusing the order of the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not given any cogent reason to pass such order. In view of that, the order so passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for hearing the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
5. We have further been informed that the High Court did not take into account the arguments put forward on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petition. However, we do not wish to go into that controversy at this stage.
7. Since we are remitting the matters to the High Court, we would only request the High Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
8. We direct that the appellant should file an undertaking stating therein that he will abide by the order to be passed by the High Court and further he will, if necessary, appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon.