Allahabad High Court Rejects Bid to Quash Gangsters Act Proceedings Against Disqualified MLA Irfan Solanki

Introduction

In a significant ruling for criminal procedure under special laws, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application by former Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki seeking to quash proceedings against him under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Justice Samit Gopal, sitting as a single judge, rejected the plea filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—equivalent to the erstwhile Section 482 of the CrPC—emphasizing the advanced stage of the trial and the availability of prima facie material against Solanki. Solanki, who was disqualified as a legislator in June 2024 following a seven-year conviction in a related arson case, argued procedural irregularities in the approval of the gang chart and political motivations behind the case. The decision, delivered on January 30, 2026, in Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and Another , underscores the courts' reluctance to interfere in ongoing trials under stringent anti-gangster legislation, particularly when evidence recording has commenced. This ruling comes amid multiple criminal cases against Solanki, highlighting tensions between political influence and law enforcement in Uttar Pradesh.

Case Background

Irfan Solanki, a former MLA from the Sisamau constituency in Kanpur Nagar, rose to prominence after winning the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections on a Samajwadi Party ticket. His political career took a sharp turn following his involvement in a high-profile arson incident in November 2022. On November 7, 2022, Solanki and his associates allegedly attempted to forcibly occupy a plot owned by Nazeer Fatima in Defense Colony, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar, by setting it ablaze and threatening her life. This led to the registration of Case Crime No. 127 of 2022 at Jajmau Police Station under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147 (rioting), 436 (arson), 506 (criminal intimidation), 327 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant), 427 (mischief causing damage), 386 (extortion by putting in fear of death), 504 (intentional insult), and 120B (criminal conspiracy). Charge sheets were filed on December 9 and 19, 2022.

Solanki's conviction in this predicate offense on June 3, 2024, by the MP/MLA Court in Kanpur Nagar resulted in a seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, leading to his disqualification under the Representation of the People Act. An appeal against this conviction (Criminal Appeal No. 6659 of 2024) is pending before the Allahabad High Court, where he was granted bail on November 14, 2024, though a stay on conviction was denied. He has further approached the Supreme Court via SLP (Crl.) No. 2168 of 2025, which remains pending.

Building on this, on December 26, 2022, an FIR (Case Crime No. 156 of 2022) was lodged under the UP Gangsters Act by Inspector Ashok Kumar Dubey of Jajmau Police Station. The FIR accused Solanki of leading an active inter-district gang comprising his brother Rizwan Solanki, Israil Aatewala, Mohd. Sharif, and Shaukat Ali. The gang was alleged to engage in breaches of law and order for financial gain, including arson, forcible land occupation, cheating, forgery, and threats. Other members' prior involvements included cases of land grabbing (Rizwan labeled a "Bhoomafiya"), cheating (Mohd. Sharif), and extortion (Israil Aatewala). A gang chart dated December 24, 2022, prepared by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Cantt.), was approved layer-wise by superiors, culminating in the Commissioner of Police's sanction on December 25, 2022.

Investigation culminated in a charge sheet on June 27, 2023, against the five accused. The Additional Sessions Judge (MP/MLA Court No. 11) took cognizance on July 21, 2023, and issued summons. Solanki and Rizwan filed a discharge application on December 12, 2024, which was rejected on August 30, 2025. Charges were framed on September 17, 2025, against Solanki and others, including additional accused Mursalin Khan @ Bholu and Ajjan @ Ajaz, under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act (Sessions Trial No. 838 of 2023). The trial commenced, with PW-1's testimony recorded and PW-2's examination-in-chief completed, awaiting cross-examination as of January 12, 2026.

The core legal questions revolved around: (1) Whether procedural lapses in gang chart approval under the 2021 Rules invalidated the proceedings; (2) If inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS could be invoked at an advanced trial stage to quash the case, charge sheet, cognizance, discharge rejection, and charge framing; and (3) Whether allegations of political vendetta warranted quashing despite prima facie evidence.

Arguments Presented

Solanki's counsel, led by Senior Advocate Imran Ullah, assisted by Mohit Singh and Vineet Vikram, mounted a multi-pronged attack on the proceedings. They contended that Solanki was falsely implicated due to political rivalry, as he had been targeted in a "series of false cases" post his 2022 election victory. Prior to the arson case, Solanki had faced eight criminal cases, four ending in final reports in his favor, three withdrawn under Section 321 CrPC, and one where he was on bail—all allegedly fabricated. Post-arson, ten more cases, including the Gangsters Act one, were filed, with bail granted in eight, underscoring malicious intent by the district administration influenced by rivals.

Central to their plea was an alleged violation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, particularly Rule 16(3). They argued no joint meeting occurred between the Commissioner of Police and Additional Police Commissioner for gang chart approval, evidencing non-application of mind. Approvals were "mechanically" granted on a pre-printed format without independent assessment, rendering the process procedurally infirm. Heavy reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 767), which quashed similar proceedings due to mechanical approvals under outdated 2001 Rules, asserting the principle applied analogously.

Additionally, they claimed abuse of process, as Solanki's conviction in the predicate arson case was under appeal, and no exceptional circumstances justified quashing. The prayer sought to set aside the entire Sessions Trial No. 838 of 2023, charge sheet, cognizance order, discharge rejection, and charge framing, with interim stay on proceedings.

Opposing vehemently, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, assisted by Rupak Chaubey and AGA-I, argued the petition was belated and multi-faceted, challenging orders at a stage where trial evidence was underway. Quashing summoning, discharge rejection, and charge framing post-charge acceptance and trial commencement was impermissible, as discharge was no longer available—only acquittal on merits remained possible. They distinguished Vinod Bihari Lal , noting its reliance on 2001 Rules inapplicable here; the 2021 Rules governed, and the FIR (July 28, 2018, in that case) predated them.

The State highlighted the gang chart's handwritten satisfaction note by the Commissioner of Police on December 25, 2022, negating mechanical approval claims. Prima facie material, including the predicate conviction (appeal pending) and members' criminal histories, justified proceedings. Invoking Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander (2012 (9) SCC 460), they urged against interference in advanced trials to prevent miscarriage of justice. Political vendetta alone could not quash cognizable offenses, per Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. (2022 SCC Online SC 484).

Legal Analysis

Justice Samit Gopal's reasoning meticulously balanced the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS against the policy of minimal interference in criminal trials, especially under the deterrent framework of the UP Gangsters Act aimed at curbing organized crime. The court first noted the undisputed advanced trial stage—PW-1 examined, PW-2's chief complete—rendering quashing of cognizance, discharge rejection, and charges untenable. Drawing from Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra (1979 (2) SCC 179), the judge clarified that post-charge framing, discharge morphs into acquittal, requiring full trial on merits. Precedents like R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), and Priti Saraf vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2021 SCC Online SC 206) were invoked to stress that Section 528/482 powers are exceptional, reserved for rare cases preventing abuse or securing justice ends, not routine scrutiny of FIRs or charge sheets.

On procedural grounds, the court rejected the 2021 Rules violation claim. Examining the gang chart, it found the Commissioner's independent, handwritten opinion on approval, distinguishing it from mechanical signing on pre-formats. Vinod Bihari Lal was inapplicable due to differing timelines and rules. The predicate conviction, though appealed, provided prima facie material, aligning with Kunal Chawala vs. State of U.P. (2023 SCC OnLine All 4606), which echoed Ratilal on post-charge limitations.

Political vendetta arguments were dismissed per Ramveer Upadhyay (para 39), holding that mere rivalry allegations do not justify quashing if offenses are made out. Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (2022 SCC Online SC 936) reinforced non-examination of allegation veracity absent patent frivolity. The four-step test from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC Online SC 1947)—assessing material quality, refutation potential, and abuse risk—failed here, as prosecution evidence stood unrefuted and trial served justice.

The analysis distinguished quashing from discharge: quashing under inherent powers targets foundational defects, but advanced proceedings demand trial continuation. Societal impact of gang activities—arson, land grabs, fear-mongering—justified the Act's invocation, balancing individual rights against public order. No speculation on merits; focus remained on procedural propriety and stage.

Key Observations

The judgment yields several pivotal excerpts illuminating the court's stance:

• On trial stage limitations: "The orders taking cognizance and summoning cannot be looked into at this stage for the purpose of quashing, as the application for discharge was rejected by the trial court, subsequent to which a charge was framed against him and the co-accused."

• Rejecting procedural lapse: "In so far as the ground of violation of the 2021 Rules was concerned, looking to the facts of the case and the gang-chart it transpires that the Commissioner of Police concerned on 25.12.2022 gave his opinion independently in it while approving the same. It thus cannot be said that he merely signed on a pre-formatted gang chart while according approval."

• On conviction's weight: "The applicant has been convicted in a case by the trial court concerned against which an appeal is pending before the High Court."

• Inherent powers' restraint: "Exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution." (Quoting Priti Saraf ).

• Political motive dismissal: "Criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival." (From Ramveer Upadhyay ).

These observations, attributed to Justice Samit Gopal, emphasize procedural rigor and trial sanctity over interlocutory challenges.

Court's Decision

The Allahabad High Court unequivocally dismissed the application on January 30, 2026, refusing to quash Sessions Trial No. 838 of 2023, the June 27, 2023 charge sheet, the July 21, 2023 cognizance/summoning order, the August 30, 2025 discharge rejection, and the September 17, 2025 charge framing. No interim stay was granted, allowing the trial before the Special Judge (MP/MLA, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar) to proceed, with PW-2's cross-examination pending.

This decision reinforces the judiciary's hands-off approach to Gangsters Act prosecutions once trials advance, preserving the Act's objective to dismantle organized crime networks through swift, unhindered adjudication. Practically, it compels Solanki to defend on merits, potentially facing conviction under Section 3(1) if gang activities are proven, alongside his arson appeal. For future cases, it signals that procedural challenges under 2021 Rules must demonstrate clear non-application of mind, not mere format use, and political allegations alone insufficient for quashing. High Courts may cite this to deny Section 528 BNSS relief in similar advanced-stage petitions, streamlining dockets and deterring dilatory tactics.

Broader implications extend to UP's law enforcement landscape, where the Gangsters Act has been weaponized against land mafias and political figures. By upholding the proceedings, the ruling bolsters police authority in gang chart preparations, provided approvals reflect independent satisfaction. It may embolden prosecutions against influential accused but invites scrutiny if appeals overturn predicates. For legal practitioners, it highlights the four-step test's utility in quashing petitions, urging focus on unrefutable material over speculative vendetta. Ultimately, the decision prioritizes public safety over individual claims, ensuring gang-related trials reach conclusion without premature judicial intervention, potentially influencing similar challenges across special statutes.