Procedural compliance under the Gangster Act, 1986 is mandatory; lack of 'due discussion' before gang-chart preparation invalidates the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

1. By means of the instant writ petition the First Information Report, lodged under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangster Act, 1986”), dated 22.11.2023 which had given rise to Case Crime No. 861 of 2023 has been challenged.

2. Brief facts which preceded the lodging of the first information report are as follows:

(i) On 10.08.2023, one Anuj Chaudhari was murdered and a first information report was lodged on the same day which gave rise to Case Crime No. 598 of 2023. It was registered under Sections 302, 307/34 of I.P.C. Four accused persons namely Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhakar were named in the first information report. It was also alleged that there was involvement of some other persons about whom the first informant, Sandeep Singh did not know.

(ii) On 01.11.2023, the angle of conspiracy was brought forth and Section 120-B of the I.P.C. was added during investigation. The petitioner was implicated for his conspiratorial role on the recovery of some firearm. On 07.11.2023, Case Crime No. 818 of 2023 under Section 7 /25 of the Arms Act was registered and thereafter the instant case under the Gangster Act, 1986 was got registered under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act, 1986. The police, for the purposes of preventing any disturbance of public order had also under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, detained the petitioner. The order of detention was passed on 03.12.2023.

3. In the instant case, we are concerned with the first information report which was lodged on 22.11.2023 under the Gangster Act, 1986. After the first information report was lodged, the instant writ petition was filed on the ground that the exercise as was required to be undertaken by the Authorities under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangster Rules, 2021”) for coming to the conclusion that the applicant was in fact to be proceeded with as a gangster under Section 2(b) and (c) of the Gangster Act, 1986 was not followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Gangster Act, 1986 was enacted, there was always an apprehension that the Authorities were misusing the Act in question and that when the accused in the base cases, on the basis of which the Gangster Act, 1986 was being invoked, was bailed out then the accused was invariably being implicated under the Gangster Act, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the Gangster Act, 1986 was enacted there was always a fear that without prima facie concluding that a person was a gangster, the first information report was being lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the High Court by its orders dated 14.10.2003 and 12.11.2003 in the case of Amarnath Dubey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6249 of 2003 had directed the State to take appropriate measures for the preparation of gang chart and for the streamlining of the investigation so that no accused was unnecessarily harassed. He pointed out to two communications of the Director General of Police dated 24.10.2003 and 20.11.2003 which were an effort to streamline the lodging of the first information report under the Gangster Act, 1986. Thereafter, in that very writ petition, the Principal Secretary of the State of U.P. on 02.01.2004 issued certain directions with regard to the preparation of the gang chart in relation to th