ANOOP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet No. 28 of 1998 dated 1/4/1998 (case Crime No. 544 of 1997) under Sections 143, 384 and 120B Indian Penal Code of Police Station Cantt. District Allahabad and also the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 246 of 2002 State v. Bhola Sonkar and others, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (VI), Allahabad.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this application, are that applicant Anoop Kumar alongwith five others have been charge-sheeted as above and the case is proceeding in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (VI) Allahabad on the basis of F.I.R. (Annexure 1). According to the F.I.R. the petitioner and his associates demanded Goonda Tax from the shopkeepers, who informed the complainant S.I. Sri Diwakar Pandey. The informant contacted shopkeepers and contractors but they were afraid of petitioner and his associates and told that petitioner and his associates demanded goonda tax and collected the same. On the basis of this F.I.R., the case was investigated and petitioner and others were charge-sheeted. The charge sheet was filed in the Court.

(3.) S.I. Sri Dhananjay Singh filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations set forth in the petition. It has been mentioned that S.I. Diwakar Pandey alongwith other police personnel made an enquiry from the shopkeepers and contractors, who told them that they were bound to pay goonda tax on account of terror of the petitioner and others. On the basis of such information, the case was registered against the petitioner and his associates. During the investigation statement of S.I. Sri Diwakar Pandey was recorded but no shopkeeper was ready to give evidence on account of terror of the petitioner and his associates. Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit further shows that the deponent contacted the effected shopkeepers but they did not dare to give any evidence in respect of the same. The deponent, in counter affidavit, further deposed that the case was registered only on the basis of oral complaint of victims of said goonda tax.