Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, JJ.
Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Up And Others - Respondents
Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 9930 of 2024, Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 10379 of 2024, Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 10852 of 2024, Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 10916 of 2024, Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 10968 of 2024.
Decided On : 26-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pankaj Kumar Chaube, Rafeek Ahmad Khan, Ram Chandra Solanki, Atul Singh, Vaibhav Kumar Verma, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Rishabh Tiwari, Sunil Kumar Srivastava.
For the Respondent: G.A., Udisha Tripathi, Vaibhav Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tripathi.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the procedural safeguards in the preparation of gang charts under the Gangsters Act are essential to prevent misuse and protect innocent individuals, emphasizing that genuine satisfaction by authorities is a prerequisite for valid action under the Act.

Headnote:
GANG CHART - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Sections 2(b), 2(c), 3(1), 5(3), 16(2), 16(3), 17 - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in the preparation of gang charts under the Gangsters Act, highlighting that the satisfaction of authorities must be genuine and not merely formal. The court interpreted the provisions of the Gangsters Act and the Rules, 2021, stressing that the invocation of the Act requires clear evidence of gang membership and anti-social activities as defined in the Act. The failure to comply with these provisions led to the quashing of the FIRs in question.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. As a common question is involved in all the above five writ petitions, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgement.

2. Basic issue in all the above writ petitions is preparation of gang chart in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2021”). In all the above writ petitions first information reports, under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Gangsters Act”), have been challenged on the ground that while preparing the gang charts of the FIRs in question, the competent authorities have not applied their minds and prepared gang charts in violation of the Rules, 2021 as well as several directions issued by this Court in the cases of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2024 (1) ADJ 231 (DB) as well as other judgements.

3. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 9930 of 2024:-

(i) That while recommending and approving the gang chart of the impugned FIR, the competent authorities instead of recording their satisfaction simply signed pre-typed satisfaction which is against the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanni Mishra (supra).

(ii) That from perusal of the gang chart, it is clear that while signing the pretyped satisfaction for approval, the District Magistrate has not mentioned the date of his signature. This fact clearly shows that there was no joint meeting of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police as required by the Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules, 2021.

(iii) That the impugned F.I.R. was registered under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act without describing the corresponding provision of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, mentioning the anti social activities on the basis of which the petitioner was termed as gangster. Therefore, the F.I.R. itself is in violation of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asim @ Hassim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2024 (1) ADJ 125 (DB).

4. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 10379 of 2024 and 10852 of 2024:-

(i) That while preparing the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R., the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah did not record any satisfaction as required by Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 2021, but he simply mentioned the word “recommended”. While approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate has not recorded satisfaction as required by Section 16(3) of the Rules, 2021 which prescribes that before approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate should also mention that apart from the gang chart he has perused the attached forms/evidences enclosed with the gang chart but he simply mentioned that he has perused the gang chart and report annexed with the gang chart, though there was no report of the Senior Superintendent of Police with the gang chart. Therefore, while approving the gang chart there is complete non application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate, Etawah.

(ii) That before approving the gang charts, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police have not conducted due discussion in a joint meeting as required by the Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 2021.

5. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10916 of 2024:-

(i) That while approving the gang chart no date was mentioned by the Nodal Officer while signing his satisfaction on the gang chart.

(ii) From the perusal of the gang chart, it is clear that recommendation of the Superintendent of Police on the gang chart was made on 24.4.2024 but the approval was granted by the District Magistrate on 10.5.2024. Both the aforesaid dates show tha