The duty of competent authorities to exercise independent mind and follow prescribed procedures in preparing and approving gang-charts under the Gangster Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 03.10.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.366 of 2023, under Section-3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Gangster Act, 1986’), Police Station-Rajghat, District-Gorakhpur.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned FIR is itself illegal because while preparing the gang-chart, the date of filing the charge-sheet in the base case was not mentioned which is in violation of Rule 8(3) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Gangster Rules, 2021’) and second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while recommending and approving the gang-chart, competent authorities have failed to apply independent mind because from perusal of gang-chart, it is clear that it was forwarded and approved on printed proforma which is against the Rules 16 and 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021.

4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned FIR and in the gang-chart because the gang-chart was prepared as per the Gangster Rules, 2021.

5. After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, this court finds that in the gang-chart, date of filing of charge-sheet in base case has not been mentioned in Column 6 of the gang-chart and also while forwarding and approving the gang-chart, Nodal Officer, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur as well as District Magistrate, Gorakhpur has signed just below the printed proforma regarding their satisfaction as required in Rule 16 of the Gangster Rules, 2021.

6. Before dealing the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to mention that the purpose of making special provisions of Gangster Act, 1986 is the prevention and dealing with gangsters and their anti social activities, therefore, the provision of this Act are stringent and are required to be interpreted strictly so as to prevent misuse on the part of State authorities.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603, observed in paragraph-38 as under:-

"38. This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty-bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position."

8. If any case is registered against a person under stringent provision of law, it affects his personal liberty under Article-21 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India and others; (1980) 4 SCC 531 observed about personal liberty as under:-

"Article 21 of the Constitution provides in clear and explicit terms that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. This constitutional right of life and personal liberty is placed on such a high pedestal by this Court that it has always insisted that whenever there is any deprivation of life or personal liberty, the authority responsible for such deprivation must satisfy the court that it has acted in accordance with the law."

9. State Government has issued Gangster Rules, 2021 in exercise of its power u/s-23 of the Gangster Act, 1986 to provide the transparent pro