BRAHM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No. 325/03 under Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

(2.) The petitioner had earlier filed criminal Writ No. 1369/02 seeking quashing of FIR No. 699/2001, PS Shalimar Bagh and FIR No. 713/2002, PS Saraswati Vihar. The petitioner contends that during the pendency of Criminal Writ No. 1369/02 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 624/03, respondent nos. 1 and 2 failed to disclose to this Court that the FIR in question (325/03) was already registered. This concealment of the fact of registration of FIR against the petitioner shows that respondent nos. 1 and 2 were working hand in glove with each other to detain the petitioner under MOCOCA. It is further submitted that petitioner was not a member of any gang and had not been engaged in committing any organised crime as required for registration of FIR under MOCOCA, neither the FIR discloses the fact of petitioner being member of a gang.

(3.) The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 713/02 under Section 387/506/34 IPC and 27 of Arms Act on the complaint of one Amit Gupta, a contractor, that the petitioner along with three of his associates came in a Skoda car and threatened him at gun point saying that he would have to pay 10% of the tender amount as 'Rangdari' to him or he and his family would be eliminated. The petitioner was also involved in FIR No. 11/89 under Section 307/34, PS Roshanara Road and FIR no. 323/95 under Section 307/427/34 IPC, PS Keshavpuram. In these FIRs also the complaint was that he and his associates had stopped one Anand Singh a Munshi of MCD contractor and threatened him regarding tender application. The petitioner faced another FIR No. 329/2000 under Section 323/341/506, PS Saraswati Vihar. The complaint was that petitioner threatened one Om Prakash, MCD contractor against bidding tenders. Petitioner is also involved in FIR No. 699/01. The complainant (Umed Singh) a MCD contractor in this case alleged that petitioner along with his associates threatened him against the bidding in tenders.