# Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1208
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-26
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 9930 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-lateef-mustak-khan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-52219
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Gang chart prepared in
violation of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
- U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986- Sections 2(b),
2(b) (i) to 2(b) (xxv), 2(c) of the Act,
1986- Gangsters Act can be invoked only
when the conditions in these provisions
are fulfilled- persona who are members of
any gang and commit offences mentioned
in these provisions- Unlike other States,
even a single base case sufficient in the
St. of U.P.- Continuing activity not a
prerequisite-
Satisfaction
of
the
authorities after joint meeting is must-
Adherence to Rules, 2021 is mandatory-
Elaborate guidelines laid down in Sanni
Mishra
reiterated-
Petition
allowed.
(Paragraphs 8 to 12, 24 to 27, 30, 32, 38
and 39)

HELD:
Before proceeding on the factual aspect as well
as legal question, involved herein, it would be
appropriate to discuss the basic object of the
Gangsters Act. The Gangsters Act was enacted
to deal with those criminals who commit crime
by forming a gang or who assist or abet illegal
activities of a gang which are mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. The
Gangsters Act can be invoked only against the
persons who are termed as gangsters as per
Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act. Therefore,
7 All. Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1209
the Gangsters Act can be imposed only on those
persons who are members of any gang and
commit offence mentioned in Section 2(b)(i) to
2(b)(xxv) of the Gangsters Act or who assist
such persons in any manner. Definition of the
word 'gang' has been given in Section 2(b) of
the Gangsters Act, providing group of persons
either acting singly or collectively with the
object of disturbing public order or gaining any
undue
temporal,
pecuniary
or
material
advantage for himself of any other person
through violence, or threat, or intimidation, or
coercion, or other similar activities by indulging
in illegal activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of
the Gangsters Act. Section 2(b), defining the
word 'gang' is quoted as under:-

"2(b). "Gang" means a group of persons, who
acting either singly or collectively, by violence,
or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or
coercion or otherwise with the object of
disturbing public order or of gaining any undue
temporal,
pecuniary,
material
or
other
advantage for himself or any other person,
indulge in anti-social activities"
 (Para 8)

The Apex Court in the case of Shraddha
Gupta (supra) observed that on the basis of a
single case, the Gangsters Act can be imposed
against a person. This observation was widely
misused by the police authorities for invoking
the Gangsters Act only on the basis of a single
case, ignoring the fact that the observation of
the Apex Court in Shraddha Gupta (supra) is
regarding commission of a single case by the
member of a gang or by any person who assists
or abets the gang in its illegal activities.
Therefore, though the Gangsters Act can be
imposed only on the basis of a single case
against a criminal, the basic condition must be
fulfilled that the criminal must be a member of a
gang and involved in illegal activities as
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act,
only then the Gangsters Act can be imposed
only on the basis of a single case. However, this
Court came across a number of cases where the
Gangsters Act has been imposed only on the
basis of a single case against an accused
without there being sufficient material to show
that the person is a member of a gang and
involved in illegal activities, mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. This is
nothing but misuse of the Gangsters Act by
some of the St. Officers. (Para 11)

The St. Government, just to prevent the misuse
of the Gangsters Act, has framed the Rules,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,935 of 70,476. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39935 for what follows._

1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. From the above analysis, it is
explicit that settled position of law is that
the
complaint/FIR
disclosing
civil
transaction may also have a criminal
texture but if the dispute is predominantly
civil in nature then merely because
FIR/complaint attracts ingredients of any
criminal offence will not resist the court
from quashing the criminal proceeding but
in those cases where there are specific
allegations of committing forgery and
allegations in the FIR/complaint are not
predominantly civil in nature but criminal
in nature, then there is no bar to continue
the criminal proceeding despite the fact that
civil proceeding is pending between the
parties.

17. In the present case there is
specific allegation of commission of
forgery on the part of the petitioner by
forging the signatures of first informant and
his
brothers
and
also
forging
the
photographs. Therefore, dispute in question
cannot be said to be essentially civil in
nature and from the perusal of the
impugned FIR, cognizable offence is made
out.

18. Therefore, this court is of the
view
that
such
allegation
must
be
investigated, therefore, petition fails and
hence dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1208
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 9930 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10379 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10852 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10916 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 10968 of 2024

Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Chuabe, Sri Rafeek Ahmad
Khan

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Gang chart prepared in
violation of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
- U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986- Sections 2(b),
2(b) (i) to 2(b) (xxv), 2(c) of the Act,
1986- Gangsters Act can be invoked only
when the conditions in these provisions
are fulfilled- persona who are members of
any gang and commit offences mentioned
in these provisions- Unlike other States,
even a single base case sufficient in the
St. of U.P.- Continuing activity not a
prerequisite-
Satisfaction
of
the
authorities after joint meeting is must-
Adherence to Rules, 2021 is mandatory-
Elaborate guidelines laid down in Sanni
Mishra
reiterated-
Petition
allowed.
(Paragraphs 8 to 12, 24 to 27, 30, 32, 38
and 39)

HELD:
Before proceeding on the factual aspect as well
as legal question, involved herein, it would be
appropriate to discuss the basic object of the
Gangsters Act. The Gangsters Act was enacted
to deal with those criminals who commit crime
by forming a gang or who assist or abet illegal
activities of a gang which are mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. The
Gangsters Act can be invoked only against the
persons who are termed as gangsters as per
Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act. Therefore,
7 All. Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1209
the Gangsters Act can be imposed only on those
persons who are members of any gang and
commit offence mentioned in Section 2(b)(i) to
2(b)(xxv) of the Gangsters Act or who assist
such persons in any manner. Definition of the
word 'gang' has been given in Section 2(b) of
the Gangsters Act, providing group of persons
either acting singly or collectively with the
object of disturbing public order or gaining any
undue
temporal,
pecuniary
or
material
advantage for himself of any other person
through violence, or threat, or intimidation, or
coercion, or other similar activities by indulging
in illegal activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of
the Gangsters Act. Section 2(b), defining the
word 'gang' is quoted as under:-

"2(b). "Gang" means a group of persons, who
acting either singly or collectively, by violence,
or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or
coercion or otherwise with the object of
disturbing public order or of gaining any undue
temporal,
pecuniary,
material
or
other
advantage for himself or any other person,
indulge in anti-social activities"
 (Para 8)

The Apex Court in the case of Shraddha
Gupta (supra) observed that on the basis of a
single case, the Gangsters Act can be imposed
against a person. This observation was widely
misused by the police authorities for invoking
the Gangsters Act only on the basis of a single
case, ignoring the fact that the observation of
the Apex Court in Shraddha Gupta (supra) is
regarding commission of a single case by the
member of a gang or by any person who assists
or abets the gang in its illegal activities.
Therefore, though the Gangsters Act can be
imposed only on the basis of a single case
against a criminal, the basic condition must be
fulfilled that the criminal must be a member of a
gang and involved in illegal activities as
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act,
only then the Gangsters Act can be imposed
only on the basis of a single case. However, this
Court came across a number of cases where the
Gangsters Act has been imposed only on the
basis of a single case against an accused
without there being sufficient material to show
that the person is a member of a gang and
involved in illegal activities, mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. This is
nothing but misuse of the Gangsters Act by
some of the St. Officers. (Para 11)

The St. Government, just to prevent the misuse
of the Gangsters Act, has framed the Rules,
2021. While framing these rules, the St.
Government also took into consideration several
guidelines issued by the High Court as well as
the Apex Court regarding invocation of the
Gangsters Act. The basic purpose of issuance of
the Rules, 2021 is that no innocent person be
falsely implicated in the Gangsters Act by
providing check and balance on the police as
well
as
administrative
officers
who
are
competent authorities to recommend and
approve the gang chart before registration of
the F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act. (Para 12)

The above guidelines show that the Court has
specifically directed the competent authorities
that at the time of preparing gang chart, the
date of filing of the charge sheet ought to be
mentioned in column-6 of the gang chart and
the competent authorities must record their
required satisfaction by writing in clear words
and not by signing a pre-typed satisfaction. It
was also directed that before approving the
gang
chart,
the
District
Magistrate/Commissioner
of
Police
should
conduct a joint meeting with the District Police
Chief to discuss material available for invocation
of the Gangsters Act. (Para 24)

From a perusal of the above mentioned circulars
of the Director General of Police, U.P. as well as
Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., it is clear that
there were specific directions to all the District
Magistrates as well as District Police Chiefs to
record their required satisfaction in the gang
chart instead of signing a pre-typed satisfaction
and it was also provided that there must be a
joint meeting to conduct due discussion
between the District Magistrate and the District
Police Chief before approving the gang chart. It
was also directed by those circulars that the
competent authorities must peruse all the
documents annexed with the gang chart before
forwarding and approving the same. (Para 27)

This Court again found in the present cases that
the gang charts of the impugned FIRs have
been prepared in utter violation of the Rules,
2021 as well as directions issued by this Court in
1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sanni Mishra (supra), Asim @ Hassim
(supra), Rajeev Kumar @ Raju (supra),
Anil Mishra (supra) and also in violation of
circular dated 19.1.2024 issued by the Director
General of Police as well as circular dated
21.1.2024 issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt.
U.P. (Para 30)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.; 2024 (1) ADJ 231 (DB)

2. Asim @ Hassim Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2024 (1)
ADJ 125 (DB)

3. Shraddha Gupta v. St. of Uttar Pradesh &
ors.; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514

4. Anil Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2024 (3) ADJ
285 (DB)

5. Dharmendra @ Bheema Vs St. of U.P. & anr.;
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2024

6. Rajeev Kumar @ Raju Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9428 of 2024

7. Mohd. Arif @ Guddu Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10980 of 2024

8. St. of Pun. Vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar &
ors.; 2011 (14) SCC 770

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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 U.P. 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
U.P.
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 U.P.
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 pre-typed 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
7 All. Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1211
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 U.P. 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 that
there was no joint meeting between
the Superintendent of Police and
the District Magistrate and the gang
chart has been approved without
application of mind as required by
Rule 17 of the Rules, 2021.

6. The following contentions have
been made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
no. 10968 of 2024:-

(i)
That
while
recommending and approving the
gang chart of the impugned F.I.R.
the competent authorities, instead
of recording their satisfaction,
simply
signed
pre-typed
satisfaction which is against the
law laid down by the Division
1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bench of this Court in the case of
Sanni Mishra (supra).
(ii) That before approving
the
gang
chart
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.

7. Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A.
on behalf of the State-respondents has
submitted that there is no requirement to
conduct joint meeting before approval of
the gang chart. Learned A.G.A. submitted
that though there is a technical fault in
approving the gang chart on the part of the
competent authorities, that cannot be a
ground to quash the impugned F.I.R. under
the Gangsters Act. It is also submitted that
in pursuance of the judgement of the
Division Bench of this Court, Chief
Secretary, Govt. of U.P. has also issued
circular dated 21.4.2024 to all the District
Magistrates as well as Superintendents of
Police for strictly following the Rules, 2021
in the light of the guidelines issued by this
Court while preparing the gang chart under
the Gangsters Act. It is further submitted
that the Director General of Police had also
issued circular dated 19.4.2024 to all the
Senior
Superintendents
of
Police/Superintendents
of
Police/Commissioners of Police to strictly
follow the guidelines, issued by this
Hon'ble Court in the case of Sanni Mishra
(supra) as well as in other judgements of
this Hon'ble Court so as to prepare the
gang chart in accordance with the Rules,
2021. However, some of the District
Magistrates and District Police Chiefs,
mistakenly,
could
not
take
into
consideration those guidelines and because
of that reason mistakes were committed
while preparing and approving the gang
charts under the Gangsters Act.

8. Before proceeding on the factual
aspect as well as legal question, involved
herein, it would be appropriate to discuss
the basic object of the Gangsters Act. The
Gangsters Act was enacted to deal with
those criminals who commit crime by
forming a gang or who assist or abet illegal
activities of a gang which are mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. The
Gangsters Act can be invoked only against
the persons who are termed as gangsters as
per Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act.
Therefore, the Gangsters Act can be
imposed only on those persons who are
members of any gang and commit offence
mentioned in Section 2(b)(i) to 2(b)(xxv) of
the Gangsters Act or who assist such
persons in any manner. Definition of the
word 'gang' has been given in Section 2(b)
of the Gangsters Act, providing group of
persons either acting singly or collectively
with the object of disturbing public order or
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary or
material advantage for himself of any other
person through violence, or threat, or
intimidation, or coercion, or other similar
activities by indulging in illegal activities
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters
Act. Section 2(b), defining the word 'gang'
is quoted as under:-

"2(b). "Gang" means a
group of persons, who acting either
singly or collectively, by violence,
or threat or show of violence, or
intimidation,
or
coercion
or
otherwise
with
the
object
of
disturbing public order or of
gaining
any
undue
temporal,
pecuniary,
material
or
other
advantage for himself or any other
7 All. Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1213
person,
indulge
in
anti-social
activities"

9. From the perusal of the
definition of the word 'gang', it appears
that if two or more persons group together
for
committing
illegal
activities,
as
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters
Act itself, then that group will be
considered as a gang. But in the Gangsters
Act, it was nowhere mentioned whether the
activity of the member of a group should be
one or more than one to attract the liability
under the Gangsters Act as mentioned in
the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime
Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of
Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015.
As
per
the
Maharastra
Control
of
Organized Crime Act as well as the Gujarat
Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime
Act, to attract the liability there must be a
continuing unlawful activity which requires
more than one charge sheet. However, in
the U.P. Gangsters Act, it is nowhere
mentioned that to attract the liability under
the Gangsters Act there must be continuing
unlawful activity which requires more than
one charge sheet for the offences. For ready
reference, Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e) of the
Maharastra Control of Organized Crime
Act as well as Sections 2(1)(c) and 2(1)(e)
of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and
Organized Crime Act are quoted as under:-

"Maharastra Control of
Organized Crime Act
2(1)(d).
"continuing
unlawful
activity"
means
an
activity prohibited by law for the
time being in force, which is a
cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment of three years or
more, undertaken either singly or
jointly,
as
a
member
of
an
organised crime syndicate or on
behalf of such syndicate in respect
of which more than one chargesheets have been filed before a
competent
Court
within
the
preceding period of ten years and
that Court has taken cognizance of
such offence.
2(1)(e). "organised crime"
means any continuing unlawful
activity by an individual, singly or
jointly, either as a member of an
organised crime syndicate or on
behalf of such syndicate, by use of
violence or threat of violence or
intimidation or coercion, or other
unlawful means, with the objective
of gaining pecuniary benefits, or
gaining undue economic or other
advantage for himself or any other
person or promoting insurgency.
Gujarat
Control
of
Terrorism and Organized Crime
Act
2(1)(c).
"continuing
unlawful activity" means an activity
prohibited by law for the time being
in force, which is a cogntzable
offence
punishable
with
imprisonment for a term of three
years or more,'-- undertaken either
singly or jointly, as a member of an
organised crime syndicate or on
behalf of such syndicate in respect
of which more than one chargesheets have been filed before a
competent
court
within
the
preceding period of ten years and
that court has taken cognizance of
such offence.
2(1)(e). "organised crime"
means continuing unlawful activity
and
terrorist
act
including
extortion, land grabbing, contract
killing, economic offences, cyber
crimes
having
severe
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consequences,
prostitution
or
ransom by an individual, singly or
jointly, either as syndicate, by use
of violence or at of violence or
intimidation or coercion or other
means."

10. This issue was also considered
by the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha
Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514. While
considering the issue whether the provision
of the Gangsters Act can be invoked if the
member of a gang is involved in a single
case, Hon'be the Apex Court observed that
on perusal of the definition of 'gang' and
'gangster' in the U.P. Gangsters Act,
continuation of illegal activities is not
required as required in the the Maharastra
Control of Organized Crime Act as well as
the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and
Organized Crime Act. Therefore, even if
the member of a gang is involved in a
single base case, the provisions of the
Gangsters Act can be imposed against him.
Paragraph No. 39 of Shraddha Gupta
(supra) case is quoted as under:-

"39. On a fair reading of
the definitions of 'Gang' contained
in Section 2(b) and 'Gangster'
contained in Section 2(c) of the
Gangsters Act, a 'Gangster' means
a member or leader or organiser of
a gang including any person who
abets or assists in the activities of a
gang enumerated in clause (b) of
Section 2, who either acting singly
or
collectively
commits
and
indulges in any of the anti-social
activities mentioned in Section 2(b)
can be said to have committed the
offence under the Gangsters Act
and
can
be
prosecuted
and
punished for the offence under the
Gangsters Act. There is no specific
provision under the Gangsters Act,
1986 like the specific provisions
under the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the
Gujarat Control of Terrorism and
Organized Crime Act, 2015 that
while
prosecuting
an
accused
under the Gangsters Act, there
shall be more than one offence or
the FIR/charge sheet. As per the
settled
position
of
law,
the
provisions of the statute are to be
read and considered as it is.
Therefore,
considering
the
provisions under the Gangsters Act,
1986 as they are, even in case of a
single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if
it is found that the accused is a
member of a 'Gang' and has
indulged in any of the anti-social
activities mentioned in Section 2(b)
of the Gangsters Act, such as, by
violence, or threat or show of
violence,
or
intimidation,
or
coercion or otherwise with the
object of disturbing public order or
of gaining any undue temporal,
pecuniary,
material
or
other
advantage for himself or any other
person and he/she can be termed as
'Gangster' within the definition of
Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can
be prosecuted for the offences
under the Gangsters Act. Therefore,
so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is
concerned,
there
can
be
prosecution against a person even
in
case
of
a
single
offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of
the anti-social activities mentioned
in Section 2(b) of the Act provided
such an anti-social activity is by
violence, or threat or show of
violence,
or
intimidation,
or
7 All. Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1215
coercion or otherwise with the
object of disturbing public order or
of gaining any undue temporal,
pecuniary,
material
or
other
advantage for himself or any other
person."

11. The Apex Court in the case of
Shraddha Gupta (supra) observed that on
the basis of a single case, the Gangsters Act
can be imposed against a person. This
observation was widely misused by the
police
authorities
for
invoking
the
Gangsters Act only on the basis of a single
case, ignoring the fact that the observation
of the Apex Court in Shraddha Gupta
(supra) is regarding commission of a single
case by the member of a gang or by any
person who assists or abets the gang in its
illegal activities. Therefore, though the
Gangsters Act can be imposed only on the
basis of a single case against a criminal, the
basic condition must be fulfilled that the
criminal must be a member of a gang and
involved in illegal activities as mentioned
in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, only
then the Gangsters Act can be imposed only
on the basis of a single case. However, this
Court came across a number of cases where
the Gangsters Act has been imposed only
on the basis of a single case against an
accused without there being sufficient
material to show that the person is a
member of a gang and involved in illegal
activities, mentioned in Section 2(b) of the
Gangsters Act. This is nothing but misuse
of the Gangsters Act by some of the the
State Officers.

12. The State Government, just to
prevent the misuse of the Gangsters Act, has
framed the Rules, 2021. While framing these
rules, the State Government also took into
consideration several guidelines issued by the
High Court as well as the Apex Court
regarding invocation of the Gangsters Act.
The basic purpose of issuance of the Rules,
2021 is that no innocent person be falsely
implicated in the Gangsters Act by providing
check and balance on the police as well as
administrative officers who are competent
authorities to recommend and approve the
gang chart before registration of the F.I.R.
under the Gangsters Act.

13. The majority of criminal Acts
and Rules, enacted and framed by the State,
are substantially based on societal norms
which can be traced back to the religious
teachings, found in the religious texts.

14. This Court is of the view that the
object of procedural Rules, framed under the
Gangsters Act as well as in other criminal
laws, must be tested on the old saying that
"99 accused may be acquitted, but one
innocent person should not be punished".

15. Rigveda, the ancient Indian
Vedic texts contains several hymns and
verses
that
prohibit
harassment
and
oppression of innocent people. Several verses
of Rigveda emphasize the importance of
protecting the innocent and the weak and
warn against oppressing or harassing them.
The Rigveda teaches that Gods are on the
side of the oppressed and will punish those
who engage in harassment and oppression.
The Mandal-1, Sukta-5th, Varg-10th (1.5.10)
of the Rigveda (interpretation by Swami
Dayanand Saraswati) is being quoted as
under:-

"मा नोो॒ मताषा॑ अो॒नभ रुा॑हन् तो॒नूनाा॑नमन्र
नगवषणः। ईशाा॑नो यवया वो॒धम् ॥ १०॥
(mā no martā abhi druhan
tanūnām indra girvaṇaḥ | īśāno
yavayā vadham)
Indra, who are the object of
praises, let no men do injury to our
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons; you are mighty, keep off
violence."

16. The Bible, both old and new
testaments,
condemns harassment
and
oppression of an innocent person. The
Bible teaches that protecting the innocent
and promoting justice is a fundamental
aspect of faith and harassment and
oppression are considered sinful behaviour.
The relevant extract of the Bible is quoted
as under:-

"Exodus 23:7
Have nothing to do with a
false charge and do not put an
innocent or honest person to death,
for I will not acquit the guilty."

17. Quran, the holy book of Islam,
strictly
condemns
harassment
and
oppression of innocent people. The Quran
teaches that protecting the innocent and
promoting justice is a fundamental aspect
of Islam and oppression and harassment are
considered grave sins. The Surah AlMa'edah (Surah-5), Ayat 32 of the Quran is
quoted as under:-

" ٓمِنْ أَجْلِ ذََٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىَٰ بَنِى
 إِسْرََٰٓءِيلَ أَنَّهُۥ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْس ًۢا بِغَيْرِ نَفْس أَوْ فَسَاد ًۢ فِى
 ِٱْلَْرْض فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيع ًۭا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا
 ٓفَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا ٱلنَّاسَ جَمِيع ًۭا ۚ وَلَقَدْ جَآءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا
بِٱلْبَي ِنَـَٰتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِير ًۭا م ِنْهُم بَعْدَ ذََٰلِكَ فِى ِٱْلَْرْض
 َلَمُسْرِفُون
٢٣ "

(Min Ajli thalika katabna
'ala banee israeela annahu man
qatala nafsan bighayri nafsin aw
fasadin fee alardi fakaannama
qatala alnnasa jamee'an waman
ahyaha fakaannama ahya alnnasa
jamee'an
walaqad
jaa
thum
rusuluna
bialbayyinati
thumma
inna katheeran minhum ba'da
thalika fee alardi lamusrifoona)
Because
of
that,
We
decreed upon the Children of Israel
that whoever kills a soul unless for
a soul or for corruption [done] in
the land - it is as if he had slain
mankind entirely. And whoever
saves one - it is as if he had saved
mankind
entirely.
And
our
messengers had certainly come to
them with clear proofs. Then
indeed many of them, [even] after
that, throughout the land, were
transgressors."

18. The above verses of different
religious texts clearly show that harassment
of innocent persons is a great sin and our
legal
system
also
prescribes
several
procedures to protect the innocent persons
and
punish
the
guilty.
Before
the
enforcement of the Constitution of India,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Ji, while addressing the
final constituent assembly, said "However
good the constitution may be, if those who
are implementing it are not good it will
prove to be bad". Therefore, providing law
and procedure for its implementation may
not result as desired if the persons who are
implementing the same have mala fide
intension or do not respect the law and its
procedure.

19. Similar is the situation in the
State of U.P. Here, though the policy of
State Government for zero tolerance
towards crime is appreciable but if some of
its officials do not follow proper procedure
and guidelines, prescribed by the State
Government
itself,
then
in
such
circumstances
the
object
of
the
Government to achieve good governance
and zero tolerance towards crime was
bound to be defeated.
7 All. Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1217
20. This Court came across myriad
cases where it was found that the
competent authorities under the Gangsters
Act were not following the procedure
prescribed
by
the
Rules,
2021
in
preparation of gang chart which is the first
stage of invoking the Gangsters Act upon
criminal(s). Though all the State officers
cannot be blamed, but certainly there is a
considerable number of State officers who
are invoking the Gangsters Act without
following due procedure laid down by the
Rules, 2021 itself. Considering the laxity
on the part of some of the State officers in
preparation of the gang chart against the
well established procedure laid down by
the State Government, several Benches of
this Court had issued directions for
preparation of the gang chart as well as for
invocation of the Gangsters Act.

21. This Court in the case of Anil
Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others; 2024
(3)
ADJ
285
(DB)
observed
that
satisfaction of the competent authorities
should be the satisfaction in true sense and
not
the
formality
and
a
dishonest
satisfaction will be no satisfaction at all.
Paragraph
No.32
of
the
aforesaid
judgement is quoted as under:-

"32. Satisfaction of the
competent authority only means
that the competent authority must
be in fact satisfy and not a
dishonest satisfaction, which will
be no satisfaction at all. The
satisfaction contemplated by the
Gangster Rule is satisfaction in
point of fact on the materials
placed
before
the
competent
authority. The satisfaction of the
competent authority referred to
under the Rule is not with respect
to the allegations levelled against
the gangster but the satisfaction is
confined to those allegations that
the accused can be prosecuted
under the Gangster Act. Whatever
may be the nature of charge against
the accused, the satisfaction of the
competent authority should be with
regard to that the materials placed
before him and the nature of the
accused indulging in community
antisocial activities. It is expedient
to sanction prosecution under the
Gangster Act."

22. In the case of Asim @ Hassim
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court,
just to prevent misuse of the Gangsters Act,
observed that the Gangsters Act can be
imposed on a person who is a member of a
gang and who is also involved in the
category of illegal activities mentioned in
Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act and,
therefore, without mentioning the relevant
provision which makes him gangster, the
provision of the Gangsters Act cannot be
invoked merely because that person has
committed an offence. In that case the
Division Bench of this Court directed that
while registering an F.I.R. under the
Gangsters Act, relevant provision of
Section 2(b) regarding illegal activities in
which the person is involved and on the
basis whereof he was termed as gangster
should also be mentioned in the F.I.R.
Though this judgement was referred to the
larger Bench by another Division Bench in
the case of Dharmendra @ Bheema vs.
State of U.P. and another; Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2024, the
reference is yet to be decided. Therefore,
till the reference is decided, the law laid
down in Asim @ Hassim (supra) is still
hold good. Paragarphs No. 5 & 9 of the
judgement in Asim @ Hassim (supra) are
quoted as under:-
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"5. From the provisions,
quoted as above as well as from the
perusal of other provisions of
Gangsters Act, it is clear that a
person can be prosecuted under
Section 3 of Gangsters Act only
after he falls under the definition of
"gangster" being part of the gang
which is involved in anti social
activities as mentioned in Section
2(b)(i) to (xxv) of the Act. The
purpose
of
making
special
provisions of Gangsters Act for
dealing with gangsters and for
preventing
their
anti
social
activities. The provision of this Act
are stringent and are therefore
required to be interpreted strictly
so as to prevent their misuse on the
part of State authorities.
9. In the present case, the
impugned F.I.R. was registered u/s
3(1)
Gangsters
Act,
without
mentioning
the
corresponding
provision, mentioning
the anti
social activities in which the
accused is involved and on the
basis of which he was named as
gangster. A person cannot be
punished without specifying the
offence committed by him which
would justify his classification as a
Gangster. "

23. This Court again considered
the Rules, 2021 on finding that the gang
chart is not being prepared as per the rules
and issued several directions in the case of
Sanni
Mishra
(supra).
Following
guidelines were issued in paragraph No.22
of the aforesaid judgment:-

"22. In view of the above,
this court lays down following
directions for preparation of gangchart before lodging FIR under the
Gangster Act, 1986 :
(i)
Date
of
filing
of
chargesheet under base case must
be mentioned in Column-6 of the
gang-chart except in cases under
Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules,
2021.
(ii) While forwarding or
approving
the
gang-chart,
competent authorities must record
their
required
satisfaction
by
writing in clear words, not by
signing
the
printed/typed
satisfaction.
(iii) There must be material
available for the perusal of the
court which shows that the District
Magistrate before approving the
gang-chart had conducted a joint
meeting with the District Police
Chief and held a due discussion for
invocation of the Gangster Act,
1986."

24. The above guidelines show
that the Court has specifically directed the
competent authorities that at the time of
preparing gang chart, the date of filing of
the charge sheet ought to be mentioned in
column-6 of the gang chart and the
competent authorities must record their
required satisfaction by writing in clear
words and not by signing a pre-typed
satisfaction. It was also directed that before
approving the gang chart, the District
Magistrate/Commissioner of Police should
conduct a joint meeting with the District
Police Chief to discuss material available
for invocation of the Gangsters Act.

25. In pursuance of the judgements
in Asim @ Hassim (supra) as well as Sanni
Mishra (supra), the Director General of
Police,
U.P.,
issued
circular
dated
7 All. Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1219
19.1.2024 to all the District Police Chiefs.
The circular dated 19.1.2024, issued by the
Director General of Police, U.P. is quoted
as under:-

"नवजय कुमार,
आई०पी०एस
डीजी पररपत्र सं०-04/2024
पुनलस महाननदेशक, उत्तर प्रदेश।
पुनलस मुख्यालय, गोमती नगर नवस्तार,
लखनऊ-226002
नदनांकः जनवरी 19,2024
नवर्यः उत्तर प्रदेश नगरोहबन्द तर्था समाज नवरोधी
नक्रयाकलाप (ननवारण) ननयमावली-2021 के प्रानवधानों के
अनुपालन के सम्बन्ध में नदशा ननदेश।
नप्रय महोदय/महोदया,
1. पत्र संख्याः डीजी-सात-एस-14 (15)/2023
नद० 02.01.2024
2. पत्र संख्याः डीजी-सात-एस-14 (09)/2021
नद० 01.06.22
3. पत्र संख्या: डीजी सात-एस-14(09)/2021
नद० 25.04.22
4. डीजी पररपत्र सं०-40/22 नद० 09.12.2022

उत्तर प्रदेश नगरोहबन्द तर्था समाज नवरोधी
नक्रयाकलाप (ननवारण) अनधननयम 1986 के अन्तगषत
अनभयुक्तों के नवरुद्ध कायषवाही के दौरान अनभयुक्तों का
सम्पूणष एवं त्रुनटहीन आपरानधक इनतहास अंनकत नकये
जाने तर्था इस सम्बन्ध में उत्तर प्रदेश नगरोहबन्द तर्था
समाज नवरोधी नक्रयाकलाप (ननवारण) ननयमावली
2021 के प्रानवधानों के अनुपालन के सम्बन्ध में इस
मुख्यालय स्तर से पाश्र्वीनकत वॉक्स में अंनकत पत्र तर्था
डीजी पररपत्र पूवष में ननगषत नकये गये हैं नकन्तु इन ननदेशों
का कनमश्नरेट/जनपद स्तर पर कड़ाई से अनुपालन नहीं
नकया जा रहा है।
श्री आशुतोर् कुमार सण्ड, शासकीय
अनधवक्ता, मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ने अपने
पत्र नदनांनकत 18.12.2023 (छायाप्रनत संलग्न)
द्वारा अवगत कराया है नक मा० उच्च न्यायालय में
नगरोहवन्द अनधननयम के अनभयुक्तों द्वारा प्रर्थम सूचना
ररपोटष को चुनौती देते हुये ररट यानचकायें योनजत की जा
रही हैं, नजसमें नगरोहबन्द ननयमावली में दी गयी नवनभन्न
व्यवस्र्थाओं का पालन न नकये जाने को आधार बनाया
जा रहा है। नवद्वान शासकीय अनधवक्ता ने उत्तर प्रदेश
नगरोहबन्द तर्था समाज नवरोधी नक्रयाकलाप (ननवारण)
अनधननयम 1986 के अन्तगषत की जा रही कायषवानहयों
में नववेचनानधकाररयों, प्रभारी ननरीक्षकों, नोडल
अनधकाररयों, पुनलस अधीक्षकों तर्था नजला मनजस्िेटों
द्वारा सामान्य रूप से की जा रही त्रुनटयों का ननम्नवत
उजलेख अपने पत्र में नकया है-
a- Under Rule 5(3)a there
must be a joint meeting of the
District Magistrate/ Commissioner
of Police with the District Police
Chief.
b- Under Rule 8(3) the
Status of each case on the date of
the approval of the Gang chart
should be strictly mentioned.
c- According to Rules the
Addl. Superintendent of Police
(Nodal Officer) must record his
satisfaction in clear words as
required under Rule16(1) of the
Rules.
d- Under Rule 16(2) Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/
Superintendent of Police after
going through the recommendation
of the Addl. Superintendent of
Police under Rule 16(1) shall
record
his
satisfaction
for
approving the same and will
forward the same to the District
Magistrate or the Commissioner of
Police.
e- Under Rule 17(2) clearly
prohibits the use of the pre-printed
rubber stamp for all gang chart for
its
approval
as
such,
the
satisfaction etc. should be seen
after recorded due application of
mind; and as such, the signature of
the concerned authority on the
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
printed form clearly shows of non
application of mind.
f- According to Rule 20(3)
before submitting the charge sheet
before the concerned special court
the Addl. Superintendent of Police
shall obtained the opinion from the
concerned prosecuting officer in
order to ascertain that there is no
illegality/irregularity
either
in
conducting of the investigation or
with regard to outcome of the
document collected during course
of investigation and after that
approval the Addl. Superintendent
of Police shall forward the same to
Senior Superintendent of Police or
Superintendent of Police for its
approval as required under Rule
20(4).
g- Under Rule 26(1) the
Commissioner
of
Police/Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/Superintendent of Police as
the case may be, will peruse the
entire
record
whenever
the
aforesaid
Charge
sheet
is
forwarded before him for the grant
of the approval as required under
Rule 20.
h- Rule 5, the gang-chart
which is prepared prosecuting the
gang member shall only contained
the number of the cases which are
considered
for
invoking
the
provision but excluding the cases
on the basis of which earlier any
proceeding under the Gangster Act
was initiated. However, the list of
the
aforesaid
cases
shall
be
annexed along with the gang chart
as provided under Rule 5D in form
prescribed under the Rule.
नवद्वान शासकीय अनधवक्ता ने अपने पत्र में
नक्रनमनल
नमस.
ररट
नपटीशन
संख्या-
18729/2023 आनसम उिष हानसम बनाम उ०प्र०
राज्य व अन्य सम्बनन्धत मु.अ.सं.