The central legal point established in the judgment is that the approval of the gang chart under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure laid down in Rules 5(3)(a) and 16 of the Rules, 2021.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate alongwith Shri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Charge sheet No.204, dated 18.06.2023 submitted in FIR No.0038 of 2023, under Sections 2/3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act as well as summoning order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Special Judge Gangster Act, Court No.16, Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that earlier the FIR has been lodged against the applicants and four other persons. In the FIR, it is alleged that a mob of 200 people assaulted the informant. He further submitted that it is a case of no injury. He further submitted that in the context of FIR, it is clearly mentioned that a mob of 200 people assaulted the informant but the FIR has been lodged only against five persons. He next submitted that based upon this, the present proceedings has been initiated by lodging FIR No.0038 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1986'). He has further submitted that a person can be booked under the provisions of Gangsters Act by preparing the Gang Chart strictly in accordance with Rule 5 and Rule 16 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. As per Gang Chart annexed at Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the application, the recommendation by imposing a gang chart was made by Nodal Officer, Gangster Act vide order dated 19.01.2023, which was approved by Superintendent of Police, Hardoi vide order dated 25.01.2023 and final approval was granted by the District Magistrate vide order dated 27.01.2023. He next submitted that as per Section 5(3)(a) of the Act, 1986, before approval of gang chart, a joint meeting of concerned Commissioner of Police, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police for due discussion is required and further as per Rule 16, satisfaction has to be recorded while granting approval of gang chart. He next submitted that so far in the present case, neither Rule 5(3)(a) nor Rule 16 of Rules, 2021 have been followed. The approval was granted by the District Magistrate without application of mind and without following Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16. He also submitted that he has taken necessary ground and has made specific averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application. There is no denial of the fact, therefore, the proceedings under Gangsters Act is bad in law and accordingly the same may be set aside.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicants further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2023 has already allowed the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.8733 of 2023 filed on behalf of the co-accused, namely-Rizwan Khan and quashed the impugned proceedings therein. He has submitted that case of the present applicants is not on the worse footing than the case of co-accused, namely-Rizwan Khan, thus, the case of the present applicants may also be considered sympathetically.

5. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgements of Division Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.5166 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023 (Mohd. Sheebu alias Sheebu Chaudhar Versus State of U.P. and other), he has further submitted that the facts of the present case are identical to the judgement of this Court and the Gang chart was approved without following Rules 5(3)(a) and 16. Considering this fact, the Court was pleased to quash the legal proceeding with the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. He lastly submitted that in the light of fact of the judgment relied, the present proceeding is bad in law and the same may be set aside.

6. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appli