IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that procedural compliance in gang chart preparation is crucial to uphold the integrity of the Gangster Act and protect individual rights.

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth, J.

1. Heard Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet No. 32 of 2012 dated 20.4.2013 and summoning/cognizance order dated 30.5.2013 as well as entire proceedings of G.T. No. 13 of 2013 (State v. Sunil and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 2012, under Section 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bansdih Road, District Ballia.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was implicated in the present offence under Section 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on the basis of two base cases; (i) Case Crime No. 476 of 2011, under Sections 393/307 IPC and (ii) Case Crime No. 47 of 2012, under Section 392 IPC. He has submitted that the records of both the cases aforesaid have got burnt due to fire in the judgeship of Ballia. On 21.12.2023, this Court directed the District Judge to get the records of the aforesaid cases reconstruct but as per report dated 6.3.2024 of District Judge, Ballia, no report has been received regarding the notice served on the prosecution/informant in both the cases regarding reconstruction of file. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, he has submitted that whether implication of the applicant in two bases cases was correct or not could not be ascertained. Prosecution has not made any effort for re-trial of the aforesaid cases also. It has further been submitted that perusal of the gang chart in the present case shows that it is in gross violation of Rules 5(3)(1). Latest status of both the base cases were not mentioned in the gang chart as per Rule 8(3). There is further violation of Rule 16 and 17 in the present case since procedure of forwarding of gang chart and application of independent mind is not apparent from the gang chart at the time of its approval. The Superintendent of Police has simply mentioned one word 'approved' and the resolution of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate is clearly missing in the gang chart.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant because of loss of records of the two base cases.

5. This Court after hearing the rival submissions finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra, 2024 (1) ADJ 231 (DB), had opportunity to discuss the relevant rules regarding approval of gang chart as follows:

“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 v. 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