Back
Quashes Gangster Act FIR for No and False Jail Entry
In a significant decision on procedural compliance, the has a first information report (FIR) registered under the , after finding that the approving authorities had failed to hold a mandatory and had included incorrect information about the of the accused. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, came in a batch of four connected writ petitions challenging the same FIR arising from a common .
Common , Common Flaws
The FIR, registered as Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 under at , was based on a dated . The lead petition was filed by Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji, while connected petitions were filed by Atul Pratap Singh, Durgesh Kumar Singh, Ajay Yadav, Pushpendra Singh, and Ranvijay Singh alias Prince.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, led by , argued that the had been approved in violation of the , particularly the under Rule 5(3)(a) for a between the competent authorities before approval.
Mandatory Skipped
The High Court examined the and noted that both the , and the , had made independent endorsements—the Deputy Commissioner recommending proceedings and the Commissioner approving them—but there was no indication of any having taken place.
Under the Commissionerate system, the Court explained, the final authority to approve a vests with the Commissioner of Police, while the proposal comes from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who is the head of a police district. Rule 5(3)(a) requires a between these two officers. The Court observed:
"Apparently, there was no discussion in a between the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which makes the approval of the fall foul of the mandatory requirements of ."
The Court further noted that even the endorsements of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, and Commissioner of Police did not record any consultation or joint discussion, violating the spirit of the rule.
False Entries: Accused on Shown in Jail
A more glaring defect emerged from the 's entries regarding the of the accused. The Court found that in the lead case, the recorded Devendra Pratap Singh as being "in jail" in connection with Case Crime No. 182 of 2024, despite the fact that he had been granted by the High Court on —nearly two months before the was approved.
Similar errors were discovered across all connected matters. Atul Pratap Singh and Durgesh Kumar Singh were shown in jail despite having secured on October 13 and , respectively. Ajay Yadav and Pushpendra Singh had orders from as early as , and , yet the uniformly listed them as in custody. Ranvijay Singh alias Prince, who faced only a solitary base case, was also incorrectly shown as in jail despite a order dated .
The High Court described this as a clear case of . The Bench wrote:
"We are, therefore, of opinion that the information in the about the petitioner being in jail in connection with the said crime is incorrect and false, the of the authority who has approved the ."
"A man on , granted by this Court, has been regarded as one in jail, while approving the , betrays utter lack of application of mind."
Legal Precedents Reinforce Stringent Standards
The Court relied on its earlier decision in , where it was held that forwarding and approving authorities must ensure compliance with the Gangster Rules and that approval without examining whether the chart was prepared according to the rules amounts to . The Court also cited the 's recent decision in , which established that a must be approved only after due discussion in a and not through a summary process. The had further mandated that competent authorities must record their in clear words after scrutinizing the and accompanying materials.
Violation of Multiple Rules
The High Court found violations of Rule 5(3)(a) (no ) across all matters, and of (false entries and ) in the individual cases. The Court held that the registration of the crime was vitiated by these .
Final Decision: FIR with Directions
Allowing all the writ petitions, the Court the FIR dated (Case Crime No. 186 of 2025). It directed the , to make an entry in the of Police Station Shivkuti in red ink recording that the proceedings against the petitioners stand by this order. The was directed to communicate the order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and through her to the Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer.
The judgment serves as a stern reminder of the procedural rigour required before invoking the stringent provisions of the , and underscores that mechanical or perfunctory approvals will not pass .
