# Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1655
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharmendra-bheema-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51580
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2(b), 3
- U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rules 5, 8, 10,
16, 17, 22 & 60 - quashing of FIR - gangchart - false and unconfirmed information -
charge-sheet not submitted before Court -
certified copy of charge-sheet - violation of
mandatory Rules - independent application of
mind - joint meeting - undated approval -
hurried preparation and approval - Rule 22
exception not applicable - Rule 5(3)(c) read
with Rule 10 mandatory - FIR under Section 3
sufficient at registration stage - no requirement
to mention Section 2(b) in FIR - disagreement
with coordinate Bench - reference to Larger
Bench on interpretation of Rules 5, 10, 22 and
60 and requirement of mentioning Section 2(b) .
1656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Interim
protection
to
petitioners
continued. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,979 of 62,873. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39979 for what follows._

3 All. Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1655
us while noticing his arguments, have any
direct bearing on the allegations in the FIR
so as to preclude a criminal investigation
into such allegations or a judicial review of
validity of the FIR under challenge before
us. From a bare reading of the FIR it cannot
be said that no cognizable offence is made
out.

26. The explanation offered by Shri
S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with
regard to deposit of one of the amounts in
the account of one of the purchasers who is
also an accused, i.e., Mr. Dhillon to the
effect that it was a loan extended by said
Mr. Dhillon to the petitioner no.1, is a plea
of defence and we cannot go into this plea
at this stage under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. We must put it on
record that Shri J. N. Mathur, learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
informant
submitted that this was a fantastic plea
which no prudent person could accept but
we say no more in this regard.

27. Shri Mathur also invited our
attention to the signatures on the board
resolution
dated
01.10.2022,
which
according to the FIR is forged and
fabricated,
conjointly
with
another
resolution bearing the signatures of some of
the signatories of the forged resolution to
contend that on a perusal from naked eyes
itself the forgery and fabrication was
apparent, however, we do not express any
opinion in this regard also.

28. Having gone through the contents
of the FIR and even at the cost of repetition
we may say that this is not a case where the
FIR should be quashed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

29. We accordingly do not find any
merit in the case. This, of course, is without
prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in
the pending investigation and also to avail
such other remedies as may be prescribed
in law.

30. Subject to above, we dismiss this
writ petition.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2024

Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mohit Singh, Sri Anil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri J.K. Upadhyay

U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2(b), 3
- U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rules 5, 8, 10,
16, 17, 22 & 60 - quashing of FIR - gangchart - false and unconfirmed information -
charge-sheet not submitted before Court -
certified copy of charge-sheet - violation of
mandatory Rules - independent application of
mind - joint meeting - undated approval -
hurried preparation and approval - Rule 22
exception not applicable - Rule 5(3)(c) read
with Rule 10 mandatory - FIR under Section 3
sufficient at registration stage - no requirement
to mention Section 2(b) in FIR - disagreement
with coordinate Bench - reference to Larger
Bench on interpretation of Rules 5, 10, 22 and
60 and requirement of mentioning Section 2(b) .
1656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Interim
protection
to
petitioners
continued. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 514.

2. Manoj Maurya v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 5202 of 2023.

3. Binni Lala @ Vinod Kumar Jain v. State of
U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19638 of
2022.

4. Rahul Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu v. State of U.P.,
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12808 of 2023.

5.
Central
India
Spinning
and
Weaving
Manufacturing Co. v. Municipal Committee,
Wardha, AIR 1958 SC 341.

6. Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur,
(1986) 2 SCC 237.

7. K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 4 SCC 173.

8. State Bank of Travancore v. Mohd. M. Khan,
(1981) 4 SCC 82.

9. Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981)
1 SCC 449.

10. Ravula Subba Rao v. CIT, AIR 1956 SC 604.

11. Govindlal v. Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, (1975) 2 SCC 482.

12. Babaji Kondaji v. Nasik Merchants Co-op
Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50.

13. Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State
of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 279.

14. Eera (through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf) v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133.

15. Swedish Match AB v. SEBI, (2004) 11 SCC
641.

16. Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General
Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC
424.
17. S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 4
SCC 596.

18. Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto v. State of
Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409.

19. Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi, (2001) 8
SCC 540.

20. Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of
Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277.

21. N.K. Jain v. C.K. Shah, (1991) 2 SCC 495.

22. Asim @ Hassim v. State of U.P., 2024 (1)
ADJ 125 (DB).

23. Farhana v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 437 of 2023 (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J. & Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,
J.)

1. Heard Shri Mohit Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Shri P.C.
Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Shri J.K. Upadhyay,
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents
and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been
preferred with the prayer to quash the First
Information
Report
dated
01.01.2024,
registered as Case Crime No.0001 of 2024,
under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred
to 'the Act of 1986'), Police Station-Bilari,
District Moradabad with a further prayer to
direct the respondents not to take any
coercive action against the petitioners
pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The respondent No.5 lodged the
aforesaid F.I.R. alleging that the accused
3 All. Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1657
persons named therein are indulged in antisocial activities and are operating a gang;
that the investigation in relation to the
aforesaid case crime is still pending and
that no charge-sheet has been submitted
against the petitioners. As regards the gangchart dated 25.11.2023, it is pleaded that
incorrect details of criminal cases pending
against the petitioners were furnished to the
Authorities by the Station House Officer of
Police Station concerned recommending
prosecution of the petitioners under the Act
of 1986. It is stated that in relation to Case
Crime No.417 of 2023, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 307/34 IPC read with
Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, mentioned at
serial No. 1 in the gang chart, it is
mentioned that charge-sheet has been
submitted before the court on 11.11.2023
whereas the charge-sheet has not been
submitted in the court. Regarding Case
Crime No.334 of 2016, under Sections 441,
447, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984, mentioned at Serial No.2 in the
gang chart, it has been shown to be pending
against the petitioners vide charge-sheet
No.199/2016
dated
08.08.2016,
information pertaining whereto has been
pleaded
as
"incorrect"
stating
that
challenging the proceedings arising out of
the said charge-sheet, Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No.5191 of 2017 (Dharmendra
Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and
another) was filed, in which, an interim
order has been passed on 16.02.2017 by
this Court and Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
is still pending but this fact has not been
mentioned in the Gang chart.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

4. The F.I.R. has been challenged
mainly on the grounds that while preparing
the gang-chart, the respondents have
violated the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules'),
inasmuch
as,
incorrect
and
incomplete information was furnished
before the Authorities by the Station House
Officer concerned; that the gang-chart has
been approved by the Competent Authority
without application of mind; that the details
of criminal history of accused on dossier do
not reflect any discussion of District
Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent
of Police in a joint meeting which is
contrary to Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules; that
as per the gang chart, proceedings in
pursuance of charge-sheet dated 08.08.2016
filed in Case Crime No.334 of 2016 are
stated to be pending whereas there is an
interim order dated 16.02.2017 passed by
this Court, which has not been mentioned
in the gang chart and the same has been
approved on the basis of unconfirmed
details of cases without verifying the status
which is in violation of Rule 8(3) of the
Rules; that the procedure prescribed under
Rules 16 and 17 has not been followed and
the gang-chart has been approved by using
the language provided in the proforma
without application of mind; and that no
date is mentioned alongwith signatures of
the District Magistrate and the Senior
Superintendent Police, Moradabad on the
gang chart. Much emphasis has been laid
on the aspect that in relation to Case Crime
No.417 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 307/34 IPC read with Section
3/25/27 Arms Act, gang chart mentions that
charge-sheet has been submitted before the
court on 11.11.2023 whereas, infact, the
charge-sheet has not been submitted in the
court, rather it is lying with the Police
Authorities.
In
sum
and
substance,
violation of Rules 5(3)(a), 8(3), 10, 16 and
17 has been pressed into service and it is
contended that the gang-chart does not
1658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conform to the guidelines laid down by this
Court vide judgement dated 13.12.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.16258 of 2023 (Sanni Mishra @
Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P.
and 2 others).

5. Another submission was made by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned F.I.R. has been registered under
Section 2/3 of the Act of 1986, however,
though sub-clause (b) of Section 2
describes various offences from (i) to
(xxv), it is not clear from the F.I.R. as to
under which sub-clause of Section 2, the
F.I.R. has been registered and, therefore,
the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed on this
ground too.

PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
CASE

6. This Court, after noting down
certain infirmities in preparation of gangchart, by order dated 01.02.2024, directed
filing of personal affidavit of Senior
Superintendent of Police Moradabad as
well as Station House Officer, Police
Station-Bilari and also ordered for their
personal appearance fixing 08.02.2024, on
which date, Shri Sandeep Kumar Meena,
Superintendent
of
Police,
Rural,
Moradabad and Shri Ravindra Pratap
Singh, Station House Officer, Bilari,
District Moradabad appeared in-person and
also filed affidavits. An application for
exemption from personal appearance of
Senior Superintendent of Police Moradabad
was allowed on the same day.

STAND TAKEN IN PERSONAL
AFFIDAVITS

7. Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, Station
House
Officer,
Police
Station-Bilari,
Moradabad, in his personal affidavit states
that the gang-chart was prepared ensuring
strict compliance of Rules 5(3)(c) and 8(3)
of the Rules, making true disclosure of
criminal history of the petitioners. Further
stand is that as per Rules 16 and 17, the
Inspector Incharge prepared the gang-chart
and presented the same before the Nodal
Officer/Circle Officer, whereafter, the same
was forwarded by Nodal Officer/Circle
Officer to the Superintendent of Police,
Rural, Moradabad, who further forwarded
the same to Senior Superintendent of Police
Moradabad,
thereafter,
the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Moradabad
recommended and forwarded the same to
the District Magistrate, Moradabad and
then, after due discussion in a joint meeting
between the Senior Superintendent of
Police and District Magistrate, Moradabad,
it
was
approved.
The
affidavit
is
accompanied by voluminous documents
which shall be discussed in the later part of
this judgement. Similar stand has been
taken
in
the
affidavit
of
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Moradabad and
arguments on the same line have been
advanced before this Court from the State
side.

QUESTIONS ARISING FOR
CONSIDERATION

8. After perusing the writ petition and
the affidavits and having heard learned
counsel for the parties at length, the
questions that arise for consideration by
this Court are as to whether, in the present
case, the State/ Police Authorities have
ensured compliance of the provisions of
Act of 1986 and the Rules of 2021 and
whether non-compliance, if any, would
vitiate the proceedings undertaken by the
officers or would create sufficient grounds
for quashing the impugned F.I.R.
3 All. Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1659
9. Another question that arises before us is
whether registration of an F.I.R. only under
Section 3 of the Act of 1986, without
mentioning any one or the other offences
mentioned in sub-clause (b) of Section 2,
would vitiate the F.I.R itself. In order to
consider the said issues and the said
questions, it is necessary to refer certain
relevant provisions of the Act of 1986 and
the Rules of 2021.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

10. The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 (U.P. Act No.7 of 1986) was passed
by the U.P. Legislature as an Act to make
special provisions for prevention of and for
coping with gangster and anti-social
elements
and
for
matters
connected
therewith or incidental thereto. In exercise
of powers conferred by Section 23 of the
Act of 1986, the State Government framed
the 'Uttar Pradesh Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
(for short 'the Rules of 2021') with a view
to provide for a speedy and transparent
procedure to punish gangsters to establish
efficient recovery system in respect of
property of gangster and incidental benefits
acquired through crimes and acts related
therewith.

11. Section 20 of the Act describes the
"OVERRIDING EFFECT" of the Act of
1986 and Rules of 2021 over any other
enactment in the following words:-

"20. Overriding effect. - The
provisions of this Act or any rule made
thereunder
shall
have
effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith
contained
in
any
other
enactment."

12. Section 2(f) of the Act provides
that words and phrases used but not defined
in the Act but defined in Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 or Indian Penal Code,
1860 shall have the meanings respectively
assigned to them in such Codes. It,
therefore, follows that if certain words are
described in the Act itself, the meaning
assigned to them would be understood as it
is but, in other eventuality, aid of I.P.C. and
Cr.P.C. would be taken. Further, any
provision of the Act or any Rule made
thereunder would be given precedence and
supremacy
over
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any other enactment,
including I.P.C. and Cr.P.C.

13. Since, in the present case,
violation of various Rules of the Rules of
2021 has been alleged by the petitioners,
certain rules relevant to the present case are
being reproduced as under :-

"5. General Rules.- (1) To initiate
proceedings under this Act, the concerned
Incharge of Police Station/Station House
Officer/Inspector shall prepare a gang-chart
mentioning the details of criminal activities
of the gang.

(2) The gang-chart will be
presented to the district head of police after
clear recommendation of the Additional
Superintendent of Police mentioning the
detailed activities in relation to all the
persons of the said gang.

(3) The following provisions shall
be complied with in respect of gang-charts:

(a) The gang-chart will not be
approved
summarily
but
after
due
discussion in a joint meeting of the
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate/
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/ Superintendent of Police.

(b) There may be no gang of one
person but there may be a gang of known
1660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and other unknown persons and in that
form the gang-chart may be approved as
per these rules.

(c) The gang-chart shall not
mention those cases in which acquittal has
been granted by the Special Court or in
which the final report has been filed after
the investigation. However, the gang-chart
shall
not
be
approved
without
the
completion of investigation of the base
case.

(d) Those cases shall not be
mentioned in the gang-chart, on the basis of
which action has already been taken once
under this Act.

(e) A separate list of criminal
history, as given in Form No.-4, shall be
attached with the gang-chart detailing all
the criminal activities of that gang and
mentioning all the criminal cases, even if
acquittal has been granted in those cases or
even where final report has been submitted
in the absence of evidence.

Along with the above, a certified copy
of the gang register kept at the police
station shall also be attached with the gangchart. In addition to the above, the
information of crime and gang members
mentioned in the gang-chart will also be
updated on Interoperable Criminal Justice
System (ICJS) portal and Crime and
Criminal
Tracking
Network
System
(CCTNS).

8.
Stating
unconfirmed
or false
information is prohibited.-(1) The Incharge
of
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/Inspector shall not mention the
cases as Part Trial or Partial Trial (PT)
without ascertaining the up-to- date status
of the cases in the gang-chart.

(2) No unconfirmed or false
information shall be entered in the gangchart.

(3) The latest status of the cases
against the gang, which are being shown in
he gang-chart, regarding their pendency in
the Special Court, the convictions or the
stage at which they are in the Court, must
be clearly mentioned.

(4)
The
responsibility
of
recording the correct and true information
shall lie on the concerned Incharge of
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/Inspector.

(5) On discovering an adverse
situation,
the
Incharge
of
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/Inspector
shall be held liable for negligence under
departmental and criminal proceedings.

"10. Records of Base Cases.- (1)
Alongwith gang chart, the certified copy of
the charge-sheet and recovery memo shall
be attached compulsorily.
(2) Where the accused is not named in the
First Information Report and document
discloses the way in which his name came
to light and if something has been
recovered, a certified copy of the recovery
memo shall be attached."

16. Forwarding of Gang-Chart.-The
following manner shall be followed in the
forwarding of Gang-Chart :

(1) Forwarding of the gangchart by the Additional Superintendent
of Police. The Additional Superintendent of
Police will not only take a quick
forwarding action in the case but he will
duly peruse the gang-chart and all the
attached forms; and when it is satisfied that
there is a just and satisfactory basis to
pursue the case, only then will he forward
the letter along with the recommendation
given below on the gang-chart to the
Superintendent
of
Police
/
Senior
Superintendent of Police.
3 All. Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1661

"Thoroughly studied the gangchart and attached evidence. The basis of
action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act
1986 exists. Accordingly, forwarded with
recommendation."

(2) Forwarding of the gangchart by the district police in-charge.-
When the gang-chart along with all the
Forms
is
received
by
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of
Police with the clear recommendation of
the Additional Superintendent of Police, he
will also thoroughly analyze all the facts
and when it is confirmed that all the
formalities of the Act have been fulfilled
and there is a legal basis for taking action
in the case, then he should forward the
gang-chart
to
the
Commissioner
of
Police/District Magistrate stating that: "I
have duly perused the gang-chart and
attached forms and I am fully satisfied that
all the particulars mentioned in the case are
correct and there is a satisfactory basis for
taking action under the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act
1986.
Accordingly,
approved."

(3)
Resolution
of
the
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate.- When the gang-chart is sent
to the Commissioner of Police/District
Magistrate along with all the Forms, all the
facts will also be thoroughly perused by the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate
and when he is satisfied that the basis of
action exists in the case, then he will
approve the gang-chart stating therein that:
"I duly perused the gang-chart and attached
Forms in the light of the evidence attached
with the gang-chart satisfactory grounds
exist for taking action under the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The
gang- chart is approved accordingly."

It is noteworthy that the words
written above are only illustrative. There is
no compulsion to write the same verbatim
but it is necessary that the meaning of
approval should be the same as the
recommendations written above, and it
should also be clear from the note of
approval marked.

17. Use of independent mind.-
(1) The Competent Authority shall be
bound to exercise its own independent
mind while forwarding the gang-chart.
(2). A pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart
should not be signed by the Competent
Authority;
otherwise
the
same
shall
tantamount to the fact that the Competent
Authority has not exercised its free mind."

14.
 Apart
from
the
aforesaid
provisions of the Act of 1986 and Rules
framed thereunder, certain other provisions
of penal law have also to be looked into
before arriving at a conclusion as to
whether there is compliance or noncompliance of the provisions of law by the
respondents while preparing and approving
the gang-chart in the present case. The
same shall be referred to at appropriate
place in this judgement.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, referring to the gang-chart and
other documents attached thereto, has
vehemently argued that though it is
mentioned therein that charge-sheet in
relation to Case Crime No.417 of 2023 has
been sent to the court on 11.11.2023, the
said fact is patently false and incorrect in
the light of 'Annexure No.9' to the writ
petition. He submits that when progress
report qua investigation was sought from
the
Court
of
Judicial
Magistrate
Moradabad,
vide
application
dated
06.01.2024, the said court, through its
office, has issued a certified copy of an
1662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application dated 07.01.2024, sent by Shri
Pradeep Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police
Station-Bilari, Moradabad, annexed at
'page 151' of the paper-book of the
petition, wherein he has stated that after
completing the investigation in Case Crime
No.417 of 2023, Charge-sheet No.410 of
2023 has been sent on 11.11.2023 to Circle
Officer, Bilari. It is, therefore, contended
that once the Sub Inspector has himself on
07.01.2024 mentioned that charge-sheet has
been sent to the Circle Officer, Bilari, it
shows that by the time the gang-chart was
approved in the last week of December
2023, charge-sheet was not submitted
before the court. Hence, it is clear that
absolutely false and incorrect information
was incorporated in the gang-chart which,
being in teeth of Rule 8(3) of the Rules,
would vitiate the proceedings and would
suffice quashing of the impugned F.I.R.

16.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has also argued that Rule 10 of
the Rules makes it mandatory to attach
certified
copy
of
the
charge-sheet
alongwith the gang-chart, however, once
charge-sheet has not been submitted in the
court in relation to Case Crime No.417 of
2023, there is no question of issuance of
certified copy thereof and, hence, no
occasion ever arose to attach certified copy
of the charge-sheet alongwith the gangchart, as a consequence whereof, the
impugned action is wholly unsustainable.

MEANING AND IMPORT OF
'CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET'

17. At this stage, the Court deems it
appropriate to explain the requirement of
attaching certified copy of the charge-sheet
as per Rule 10. To appreciate this, Rule 60
of the Rules of 2021 needs thoughtful
consideration and is quoted hereinbelow:-

"60. Certified copies shall be
primary
evidence-
Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any
other Act, in the trial of cases under this
Act the criminal cases included in the gangchart and the FIRs mentioned in the list can
be proved by the Officer certifying the
certified copy of the charge-sheet. No
original form shall be required for the same
and the facts contained in the Forms so
proved shall be deemed to be proved unless
it is rebutted by any evidence to the
contrary."

18. Significantly, Rule 60 finds place
in Chapter-8 of the Rules with a headingGENERAL RULES OF TRIAL. The Rule
clearly reflects that certification of a
charge-sheet is associated with the police
officer,
however,
it
clearly
and
unambiguously relates to trial of cases
under the Act and the role of the officer has
been assigned only to prove the certified
copy of the charge sheet during the course
of trial itself. Therefore, proving certified
copy of the charge-sheet has nothing to do
with preparation or approval of the gangchart at the initial stage of proceedings,
rather Rule 60 would come into application
during the course of trial and that would
certainly begin when the charge-sheet is
submitted before the court concerned and
cognizance is taken thereon, otherwise, trial
cannot begin. The language used in Rule 60
is
clear
and
unambiguous,
i.e.,
"CERTIFYING THE CERTIFIED COPY
OF THE CHARGE-SHEET and "NOT
CERTIFYING
THE
CHARGE-SHEET
ITSELF". Therefore, Rule 60 would come
into play at that stage when gang-chart
alongwith certified copy issued by the
competent Court is already filed before the
Trial Court and the police officer is called
upon during the course of trial to certify
that certified copy of the charge-sheet.
3 All. Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1663
Hence, it cannot be said that Rule 60 would
empower the police officer to certify the
charge-sheet itself during the course of
investigation
so
as
to
satisfy
the
requirement of Rule 10 which casts
mandatory duty upon police officer to
compulsorily attach the certified copy of
the charge-sheet alongwith gang-chart.

19. Here, certain provisions of Cr.P.C.
also need a glance. Though, in common
parlance, we frequently use the word
"charge-sheet", surprisingly, Cr.P.C. does
not define "charge-sheet". What it defines
in relation to completion of investigation is
a "police report" as per Section 2(r) in the
following
words:-

"(r) "police report" means a
report forwarded by a police officer to a
Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section
173;"

20. Therefore, a police report is
referable to the one which the Incharge of
the police station forwards to a Magistrate
after completion of investigation. Section
173(2) of Cr.P.C. needs reference here and
is reproduced as below:-

Section 173

(1).....................

(2)(i) As soon as it is completed,
the officer-in-charge of the police station
shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to
take cognizance of the offence on a police
report, a report in the form prescribed by
the
State
Government,
stating
-
.....................................

21. The police report can either be in
the form of a charge-sheet containing the
conclusion drawn by the Investigating
Officer that the accused persons should be
tried after being summoned before the
court or it can be a final report disclosing
that accusation made through FIR has been
found to be false giving rise to no occasion
for trial of accused persons. In both the
cases it will be a "police report" only.

22. Insofar as the word "charge" is
concerned, Chapter XVII Cr.P.C. is titled as
"THE CHARGE" and contains various
provisions in relation to framing of charge,
its alteration etc. etc. Therefore, the word
"charge" has been used in relation to
competence of the court concerned for trial
of offenders and has nothing to do with the
power of police officers in relation to
accusation. As a matter of fact, the police
officers have no right to frame the charge
which is the sole prerogative of the Trial
Court concerned after it takes cognizance
of the police report submitted under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

23. When aforesaid is the situation,
then what would be the meaning and
significance of words "charge sheet" used
in Rule 10 of the Rules. Since the words
"charge sheet" have not been defined either
in the Act of 1986 or the Rules of 2021 or
even in Cr.P.C., these words used in
common parlance would be understood as
they are but certainly in the light of same
words used in the Act of 1986.

24. The Court has got the occasion to
go through certain judgements pronounced
by esteemed co-ordinate benches of our
Court where necessity of attaching certified
copy
of
the
charge-sheet
has
been
discussed.
In
the
judgements
dated
31.05.2023, 02.05.2023 and 28.08.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Nos.5202 of 2023 (Manoj Maurya vs. State
of U.P. and another), 19638 of 2022 (Binni
Lala @ Vinod Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P.
and 3 others) and 12808 of 2023 (Rahul
Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu vs. State of U.P.
1664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and 3 others) respectively, the Co-ordinate
Benches of this Court have dealt with
Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of
1872') and have observed that it is not the
requirement of law, particularly, Rule 10 of
the Rules of 2021, to attach certified copy
of the charge-sheet obtained from the court
concerned, rather the certification made by
the public officer in whose custody of
public document remains, would suffice,
provided requirements of Section 76 are
satisfied. For a ready reference, Section 76
of the Act of 1872 needs reproduction as
follows:-

"76. Certified copies of public
documents.- Every public officer having
the custody of a public document, which
any person has a right to inspect, shall give
that person on demand a copy of it on
payment of the legal fees therefore,
together with a certificate written at the
foot of such copy that it is a true copy of
such document or part thereof, as the case
may be, and such certificate shall be dated
and subscribed by such officer with his
name and his official title, and shall be
sealed, whenever such officer is authorized
by law to make use of a seal; and such
copies so certified shall be called certified
copies."

Explanation.-Any officer who, by
the ordinary course of official duty, is
authorized to deliver such copies, shall be
deemed to have the custody of such
documents within the meaning of this
section.

25. The Court is conscious of the fact
that Section 76 finds place in Chapter V of
the Act of 1872 which is titled as "OF
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE".
The
Chapter contains provisions in relation to
proof of documents and contents thereof by
way of primary and secondary evidence,
their admissibility, rules as to notice to
produce, attestation, admission and many
other related provisions. The Scheme of the
Act of 1872 is clear and, therefore, Section
76 has to be read in relation to the
proceedings during the course of trial
before the court of law where stage of
proving or disproving a document reaches
and it cannot be associated with the stage
when trial has not even commenced in
cases arising out of Act of 1986. Therefore,
Section 76 cannot be associated with
preparation or approval of gang-chart
where charge-sheet has not been filed in the
base
cases,
subject
to
contingencies
mentioned in Rule 22 discussed later. Rule
2(b) of the Rules 2021 defines "base cases"
as the cases on the basis of which a gangchart has been prepared with the intention
of taking action against the gang under the
Act.

26. We may emphasize that since the
issue involved in this case is as to whether
without completion of investigation and
without submission of charge-sheet by the
police in the base case(s), a person can be
made an accused under the Act of 1986, it
is also necessary to refer to Rule 22 of the
Rules of 2021, as quoted below:-

"22.
Criminal
history
not
mandatory and sections of the Act can be
imposed in the course of investigation - (1)
A single act/omission will also constitute
an offence under the Act, and First
Information Report may be registered on
the basis of a single case i.e., it is not
mandatory that any criminal history must
be recorded and alleged before registering
an offence under the Act.

(2) The Act may also come into
force on a single prosecution in certain
class of cases, such as -
3 All. Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1665

if it appears that the gang has
committed a single offence mentioned in
Sections 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397 of the
Penal Code out of the offences mentioned
in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 2
of the Act or sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v), (vii),
(x), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix),
(xx) or (xxi) of clause(b) of Section 2 of the
Act, which is presently under investigation,
and the offence under this Act is being
proved by collected evidence, then along
with the criminal act under consideration,
the gang-chart should also be approved by
the
concerned
Commissioner
of
Police/District Magistrate involved in the
investigation of the said offence and the
provisions of the Act can be imposed while
investigating both the offences together in
accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Further, the charge-sheet can be sent to the
Special Court constituted under the Act."

27. It is apparently clear from Rule 22(1)
that a single act/omission can also
constitute an offence under the Act of 1986
and First Information Report may be
registered on the basis of a single case. This
Rule has already been interpreted by the
Supreme Court in the case of Shraddha
Gupta vs. State of U.P. decided on
26.04.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.569570 of 2022 reported in 2022 SCCOnline
SC 514 and, hence, needs no further
deliberation. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule
22 is of quite significance in the present
case which, infact, is an exception to Rule
5(3)(c) in the sense that whereas Rule
5(3)(c) provides that the gang-chart shall
not be approved without completion of
investigation of the base case(s), sub-rule
(2) of Rule 22 mentions various subsections of Section 2 of the Act of 1986 and
the sub-rule implies that after the gang has
committed a single offence mentioned
under Sections 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397
of the Penal Code out of the offences
mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Act or sub-clauses (ii),
(iii), (v), (vii), (x), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii),
(xviii), (xix), (xx) or (xxi) of clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Act, which offences are
under
investigation,
then
alongwith
criminal act under consideration, the gangchart should be approved by the concerned
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate
involved in investigation of the said offence
and the provisions of the Act can be
imposed while investigating both the
offences altogether in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. Rule 22(2) of the
Rules of 2021, as such, carves out an
exception to the requirement of completion
of investigation before the gang-chart is
approved, however, it can be done only
when the First Information Report in the
base case(s) is registered under any of the
penal provisions mentioned under sub-rule
(2) of Rule 22, otherwise, Rule 5(3)(c)
shall, generally, be read with Rule 10 and
understood in absolute terms and before
approving the gang-chart, not only the
investigation must be completed but a
charge-sheet also must be submitted before
the Competent Court and the certified copy
must have been issued by the said Court so
as to compulsorily form part of the gangchart as per Rule 10(1).

28. In the present case, the base case
covered by Case Crime No. 417 of 2023 is
not covered by Rule 22(2) of the Rules
2021 in the sense that it is not an offence
mentioned in sections 302, 376D, 395, 396
or 397 of the Penal Code out of the
offences mentioned in sub-clause (i) of
clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act or subclauses (ii), (iii), (v), (vii), (x), (xii), (xiv),
(xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx) or (xxi) of
clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, and,
therefore, the present case is not the one
1666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which falls within exception to the general
Rules 5 and 10 and, hence, in the facts of
the present case, the Court is of the
considered view that without completion of
investigation and without forwarding the
charge-sheet in Case Crime No.417 of 2023
to the Court, the gang-chart, could not be
approved.

29. Now coming to the aspect as to
whether in view of Rules 5(3)(a), 8(3), 16
and 17, the preparation/approval of the
gang-chart in the present case, is according
to law, the Court has carefully gone through
the record of proceedings and it finds that
in every document including gang-chart, its
format,
charts
and
tables
describing
criminal history etc., the factum of
submission of charge-sheet No. 410 of
2023 on 11.11.2023 in the Court and
pendency
of
proceedings
before
the
Judicial Magistrate has been written down
and described. Surprisingly, the current
status column too contains the same
disclosure in all the tables and charts filed
alongwith personal affidavit of the Station
House Officer.

30. During the course of arguments,
learned State Counsel could not dispute the
submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioners that the Sub-Inspector of Police
Station Bilari himself, on 07.01.2024,
submitted an application before the Judicial
Magistrate that charge-sheet No.410 of
2023 had been forwarded on 11.11.2023 to
the Circle Officer, Bilari. The said report
forms part of the record of the Court of
Judicial Magistrate where the case number
has not been mentioned which is normally
allotted after cognizance is taken on the
charge sheet, but the report has been issued
by mentioning crime number and the
relevant sections only. This, in itself,
suggests that charge-sheet has not been
filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and
the trial is not pending based thereupon
and, therefore, the information entered into
in the gang-chart and other charts that
proceedings are pending before the Judicial
Magistrate and that charge-sheet has been
forwarded to the Magistrate is incorrect and
incomplete disclosure of true and factual
position. Therefore, preparation of gangchart in the present case is clearly in teeth
of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules.

31. The Court has already discussed
that unconfirmed or false information shall
not be entered in the gang-chart as
mandated under Rule 8(2) and now this
Court is inclined to make the officers
understand the seriousness of furnishing
false and unconfirmed information as, in
such event, the statutory responsibility is
fastened on the Incharge of police station
concerned as per sub-rules (4) and (5) of
Rule 8 reproduced as such:-

"(4)
The
responsibility
of
recording the correct and true information
shall lie on the concerned Incharge of
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/Inspector.

(5) On discovering an adverse
situation,
the
Incharge
of
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/Inspector
shall be held liable for negligence under
departmental and criminal proceedings."

32. As far as compliance of Rules 16
and 17 is concerned, though the State has
made attempts to support the gang-chart
and the approval granted to it by referring
to the documents annexed to the personal
affidavit,
a
careful
scrutiny
of
the
documents would reveal that the Nodal
Officer/Regional
Officer
Moradabad
forwarded the gang chart for approval on
27.12.2023, the Superintendent of Police,
3 All.