In an appeal filed before the Supreme Court challenging Allahabad High Court’s judgment dated 27-06-2022, whereby the prayer for quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (1986 Act), and the review filed for the order was rejected, a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the said FIR due to procedural irregularity.
The petitioners before the High Court were allegedly members of a gang involved in land grabbing, fraudulent land transactions, extortion, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, breach of peace, cheating, forgery, etc. The said FIR relied solely on the gang chart, which was challenged before the High Court. The High Court found that, prima facie, a case was made out against the petitioners and declined relief.
The appellant contended that the gang chart filed with the FIR did not comply with the prescription under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (2021 Rules). The State argued that the Nodal Officer had forwarded the gang chart to the court concerned at the first instance, and that the original gang chart produced by the appellant showed different dates on which various authorities had signed it as per the 2021 Rules.
The Court stated that for a gang chart to be approved, the written recommendations of the Nodal Officer and the Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) must be signed by the Superintendent of Police (SP) and the District Magistrate (DM). It was noted that neither the recommendations nor the signatures were visible on the FIR along with the gang chart. The Court noted the State’s contention that the Nodal Officer, as well as the ASP, had signed the same with the recommendations on 20-05-2022, and that the SP and DM had approved it by signing on 26-05-2022 and 28-05-2022, respectively.
Referring to Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1216, the Court perused Section 5 of the 1986 Act and noted that neither the approval nor the meeting mentioned in Section 5(3) was evident from the documents on record. Upon perusing Rule 16(1), the Court stated that a clear express recommendation is required only in case of ASP and the SHO who initiates the proceedings, which were also absent in the certified copy present on record.
The Court said that the certified copy of the gang chart received from the court to which the FIR was transmitted did not have the signatures of various authorities, including the Nodal Officer, and refused to agree with the State’s contention that the Nodal Officer had forwarded the gang chart to the jurisdictional court while sending the same to the ASP. The Court observed that there was no prescription in the Rules to forward a gang chart to the court before it even assumes the status of a gang chart under the 1986 Act and 2021 Rules.
Further, the Court fell back on the principle that when a particular thing is to be done, it should be done in the manner stipulated, especially when the liberty of an individual is at stake. The Court found no reason to sustain the impugned judgment and to allow the continuation of criminal proceedings based on the FIR. Hence, the Court quashed the FIR because the accompanying gang chart did not comply with the 1986 Act and the 2021 Rules.
The Court clarified that the prescription under Section 5(3)(d) would not preclude the Authorities from taking any action, since the subject gang chart had been quashed on the grounds of glaring procedural irregularity. It was also clarified that nothing had been said about the allegations raised by the police regarding the offences mentioned in the gang chart.
Thus, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and quashed the said FIR.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Vishwajit Singh (Sr. Adv), Ms. Veera Kaul Singh (AOR), Mr. Rohan Chaudhary
For Respondents – Mr. Namit Saxena (AOR)
