# Kamalveer Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 210
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16327 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Madan Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamalveer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53342
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article - 226 - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 2(wa), - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 -Sections 34, 120-B, 302, 307
- U.P. Ganster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2(b),
2(b)(1) to (XXV), 2(c), 3(1) - U.P. Ganster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5, 5(1), 5(2), 5(3)-
(a),(b),(c),(d),(e), 16, 17, 18 & 24 -
National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2)
- Writ Petition - challenge to proceedings under
the Gangster Act - FIR lodged under the
Gangster Act - questioned for non-compliance
with mandatory procedural safeguards as per
Gangster Rules - petitioner in jail - plea raised
that FIR was registered without adherence to
Rule 5(3)(a), which mandates "due discussion"
among officials prior to gang-chart preparation -
reliance placed on precedents including Sanni
Mishra, Abdul Lateef, and Ram Manohar Lohia -
petitioner pointed out irregularities in gangchart approval process and asserted that victims
in base cases lack locus standi in Gangster Act
proceedings - Court's observed that - (i)
judgments cited by the St. found to be
inapplicable to the present context, (ii) victims
have no right to oppose a writ petition under
the
Gangster
Act,
(iii)
mandatory
"due
discussion" among competent authorities prior
to gang-chart preparation was conspicuously
absent, indicating lack of application of mind,
(iv) FIR under the Gangster Act appeared to be
lodged in a mechanical manner, with glaring
inconsistencies such as branding the petitioner
absconding despite his incarceration - court
held that, (i) Branding someone a gangster
requires
careful
procedural
compliance,
especially when the individual is already facing
trial in base cases, (ii) petitioner was falsely
implicated
under
the
Gangster
Act
-
Consequently, impugned FIR, charge-sheet and
the gang-chart are quashed. (Para - 7, 17, 19,
20, 21)

Writ petition stands allowed. (E-11)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- (2021) 4
SCC 781,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,835 of 52,791. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39835 for what follows._

210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
direct Additional District Court Fast Track
to review its earlier order of bail rejection.
Doctrine of merger as held in Shankar
Ramchandra ( Supra) is applicable here
also. Bail rejected by Session Judge was
also rejected by High Court. Allowing the
writ petition will mean to direct Additional
District Judge Fast Track Court to consider
the application dated 29.04.2025 and
indirectly asking to reconsider the bail
application rejected by the High Court.

15. Moreover, the petition suffers
from gross delay and laches, which remain
unexplained. In Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Vs. Dugal Kumar12, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that constitutional remedies
must be sought promptly and diligently.
The belated filing of the present petition
casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the
petitioner and indicates an ulterior motive
of forum-shopping. Relevent extract is
elucidated as below:-

"It is well-settled that under Article
226 of the Constitution, the power of a High
Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction is discretionary. One of the grounds
to refuse relief by a writ Court is that the
petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is
imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution, that he should come to the Court
at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity.
Inordinate delay in making the motion for a
writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing
to exercise discretion in favour of the
applicant." (Emphasis supplied)

16. This Court is of the considered
view that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot be invoked to circumvent the
statutory remedies provided under the
Cr.P.C. Judicial orders, once passed, attain
sanctity and cannot be lightly unsettled by
collateral proceedings. Entertaining such
petitions
would
open
floodgates
of
litigation and severely impair the integrity
of judicial decisions. The same was held in
Union Of India And Anr vs Kirloskar
Pneumatic Company Limited13 as, "The
power conferred by Article 226/227 is
designed to effectuate the law, to enforce
the Rule of law and to ensure that the
several authorities and organs of the
State act in accordance with law. It
cannot be invoked for directing the
authorities to act contrary to law."

17. The final prayer in the writ
petition-seeking a writ of mandamus to
the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal
of the application dated 29.04.2025 is not
based on sound legal footing. It essentially
aims to override or indirectly invalidate the
judicial remand and the rejection of bail
orders already passed. Such a course is
legally impermissible and tantamount to
subverting the hierarchy and finality of
judicial orders.

18. In light of the aforementioned
discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 210
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16327 of 2024

Kamalveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
5 All. Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek
Kumar
Mishra,
Chandrakesh
Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, G.A.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article - 226 - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 2(wa), - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 -Sections 34, 120-B, 302, 307
- U.P. Ganster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2(b),
2(b)(1) to (XXV), 2(c), 3(1) - U.P. Ganster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5, 5(1), 5(2), 5(3)-
(a),(b),(c),(d),(e), 16, 17, 18 & 24 -
National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2)
- Writ Petition - challenge to proceedings under
the Gangster Act - FIR lodged under the
Gangster Act - questioned for non-compliance
with mandatory procedural safeguards as per
Gangster Rules - petitioner in jail - plea raised
that FIR was registered without adherence to
Rule 5(3)(a), which mandates "due discussion"
among officials prior to gang-chart preparation -
reliance placed on precedents including Sanni
Mishra, Abdul Lateef, and Ram Manohar Lohia -
petitioner pointed out irregularities in gangchart approval process and asserted that victims
in base cases lack locus standi in Gangster Act
proceedings - Court's observed that - (i)
judgments cited by the St. found to be
inapplicable to the present context, (ii) victims
have no right to oppose a writ petition under
the
Gangster
Act,
(iii)
mandatory
"due
discussion" among competent authorities prior
to gang-chart preparation was conspicuously
absent, indicating lack of application of mind,
(iv) FIR under the Gangster Act appeared to be
lodged in a mechanical manner, with glaring
inconsistencies such as branding the petitioner
absconding despite his incarceration - court
held that, (i) Branding someone a gangster
requires
careful
procedural
compliance,
especially when the individual is already facing
trial in base cases, (ii) petitioner was falsely
implicated
under
the
Gangster
Act
-
Consequently, impugned FIR, charge-sheet and
the gang-chart are quashed. (Para - 7, 17, 19,
20, 21)

Writ petition stands allowed. (E-11)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- (2021) 4
SCC 781,

2. Daxaben Vs The St. of Guj. & ors. - 2022 Live
Law (SC) 642,

3. Jagjeet Singh & ors.Vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu
& anr.- 2022 Live Law SC 376,

4. Zeba Rizwan Vs St. of U.P. - AIR (2022) 4 All
LJ 175,

5. Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2009 (Pappu @
Dhani Ram Vs St. of U.P.) - 2024 0 Supreme
(All) 258 (),

6. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32226 of
2015 20 (Shahab @ Shahabuddin Vs St. of U.P.),

7. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9428 of 2024
(Rajeev Kumar @ Raju Vs St. of U.P. And 2
Others),

8. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12808 of 2023
(Rahul Saxena Alias Bhola/Bholu Vs St. of U.P. &
Others),

9. Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim Vs St. of
Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695,

10. Mohammad Wajid Vs St. of U.P., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 951,

11. Jay Kishan & ors.Vs The St. of U.P. & ors.-
(2025) 3 SCR 65,

12. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs St. of Bihar & anr.-
AIR 1966 Supreme Court 740,

13. Sanni Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.- 2024 (1)
ADJ 231 (DB),

14. Abdul Lateef Vs St. of U.P. & ors.- (2024)
128 ACC 876

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
&
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh, J.)

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
5 All. Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
213
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 the offences under the
Gangster Act, 1986. Thereafter, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
State ultimately promulgated the Gangsters
Rules, 2021 and he specifically referred to
Rules 5, 16, 17, 18 and 24 and therefore the
same are being reproduced here 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 gangcharts:-

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
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
gang-chart. 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).

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

(1) Forwarding of the gang-chart
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.

 "Throughly studied the gangchart and attached evidence. The basis of
action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1986 exists. Accordingly, forwarded with
recommendation."

(2) Forwarding of the gang-chart
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 gangchart 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 AntiSocial 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: "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.

18. Format of the Gang Chart.-
Gang Chart shall be sent only in the
manner as given in Form No.-1 of these
rules.

24. Expeditious Investigation.-
(1) The investigation of any offence under
the Act shall, as far as possible, be
completed within six months.
 (2) In unavoidable circumstances,
after the approval of the district police incharge, a maximum extension of three
months can be provided.

(3)
In
no
case,
can
the
investigation be extended for more than
one year."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
thereafter referred to a few of the
judgments of this Court which had
expressed their dissatisfaction with regard
to the implementation of the rules before
the gang chart was prepared. They were
Sanni Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors. reported in 2024 (1) ADJ 231
(DB) and Abdul Lateef vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2024) 128
ACC 876. Learned counsel for the
petitioner referring to the judgment of
Abdul Lateef (Supra) submitted that the
High Court had taken note of the fact
earlier also in various writ petitions that the
5 All. Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
215
competent authority before the preparation
of the gang chart was not exercising its
independent mind. Referring to those
judgments and also to Abdul Lateef
(Supra) learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that subsequently Government
Orders were issued by the Director General
of Police dated 19.01.2024 and 21.01.2024
and he states that by those two Government
Orders there was again an endeavour of the
State Government to see that the Provisions
of Rules 5(3)(a) and Rules 16 & 17 of the
Gangster Rules, 2021 were followed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore
submitted that when the State had to form
an opinion that a gang was operating and
therefore a gang chart comprising the
names of the gangsters had to be prepared
then it had to prima facie conclude that the
group of persons who were to be termed as
a gang were

(i) either acting collectively or
singly,

(ii) by violence or threat or show
of violence or intimidation or coercion or
otherwise,

(iii) were having an object of
disturbing public order or gaining any
undue temporal pecuniary material or other
advantage for the members of the gang
either individually for themselves or for
others and

(iv) to disturb the public order
and to gain undue pecuniary material or
other advantage they were indulging in
anti-social activities enumerated in Section
2(b) (I) to (XXV) of the Gangster Act,
1986.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
reiterated
that
since
the
preparation of the gang chart, after the
Gangster Act, 1986 was enacted was being
prepared very arbitrarily, the Gangsters
Rules, 2021 were framed and it was
categorically stated that after the gang chart
was prepared under Rules 5(1) of the
Gangster Rules, 2021 by the concerned Incharge of Police Station/Station House
Officer/Inspector for the purposes of
initiating proceedings under the Gangsters
Act, 1986, it had to 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 gang. He further submitted
that thereafter the Rules 5(3) (a),(b),(c),(d)
and (e) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021 had to
be followed. He specifically relied upon the
Rule 5(3)(a) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021
and stated that after the gang chart was
prepared by the police under Rule 5(1) and
5(2) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021 the gang
chart had to be presented to the District
Head of Police after recommendation of the
Additional Superintendent of Police and
then the gang chart had to be approved
after (i) due discussion, (ii) a joint meeting
of the Commissioner of Police/District
Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/Superintendent of Police.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
laid much stress on the fact that a person
who was already suffering on account of
the lodging of the base case had to be
prevented
from
further
unessential
suffering and, therefore, before the lodging
of the first information report under the
Gangsters Act, 1986 and before the
approval of the gang chart prepared by the
police there had to be (i) due discussion,
(ii) in a joint meeting of the Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of
Police and thereafter the group of persons
who were to be considered as gangsters and
who were, as per the police, operating as a
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
gang had to be booked by the lodging of a
first information report. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that due
discussion was not an empty formality but
had to be a full fledged exchange of views.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the meaning of the word "due
discussion" as had been given out in the
Advanced Law Lexicon Dictionary, which
was "The general consideration of a
subject before a meeting, in which, as far
as possible, all persons may be allowed to
air their views". Similarly, he referred to
the Black's Law Dictionary wherein
"discussion" has been explained as "The
act of exchanging views on something; a
debate"

7. In the instant case, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner was, in connection with the Case
Crime No. 598 of 2003, arrested on
01.11.2023 and that too in a conspiratorial
role. Learned counsel for the petitioner
therefore submitted that had there been a
due discussion in a joint meeting of the
officials as were named in Rule 5(3)(a) of
the Gangsters Rules, 2021 then they would
have definitely seen that the petitioner was
already in jail since 01.11.2023 and there
was absolutely no question of his indulging
in any act as is contemplated under Section
2(b) (I) to (XXV) of the Gangster Act, 1986.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that even if the petitioner had been implicated
in a crime under Section 302, 307/34 and
120-B of I.P.C. there had to be a finding
arrived at in the joint meeting that the
petitioner by his acts had either singly or
collectively, by violence or threat or show of
violence or intimidation or coercion or
otherwise participated in the anti-social
activities named under Section 2(b) (I) to
(XXV) of the Gangster Act, 1986 for the
purposes of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal pecuniary
material or other advantage for himself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
to come to the conclusion that the petitioner
was disturbing public order there had to be a
finding with regard to it. Relying upon a
judgment of Supreme Court in Ram
Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar And
Anr. Reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court
740, learned counsel for the petitioner states
that disturbance of public order had to be
distinguished from a general disturbance of
public tranquillity. He submitted that every
illegal act which a person does and which is
to be found in the list given under Section
2(b) (I) to (XXV) of the Gangster Act, 1986
would definitely cause some kind of
disturbance to public tranquillity but
whether it would result in the disturbing of
public order had to be actually seen and
this could have done by due discussion
and deliberation as is conceived in Rule
5(3)(a) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021.
Also, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that if any undue temporal
pecuniary material or other advantage had
been gained by the petitioner by his acts of
violence or threat or show of violence,
then with regard to that also there should
have been a finding in black and white by
the officials named under Rule 5(3)(a) of
the Gangsters Rules, 2021. Learned
counsel for the petitioner states that the
Rules 16 and 17 of the Gangsters Rules,
2021 definitely state that everything had to
be done after due application of mind.

8.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner further relied upon a judgment of
Supreme Court in Jay Kishan and Ors. vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
reported in (2025) 3 SCR 65 and
specifically referred to paragraphs no. 22 to
27 and therefore the same are being
reproduced here as under :
5 All. Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
217

"22. However, the answer to the
moot
question
would
lie
in
the
interpretation accorded to the definitions
supra in conformity with the object and
intent of the Act. This would have to be
examined in juxtaposition with the FIR.

23. Scrutiny of the cases cited in
the FIR to invoke the Act against the
appellants prima facie reveal that the same
substantially relate to and/or emanate from
certain
property
and
monetary
transactions. The said transactions are
primarily civil in nature. No doubt,
addition of various Sections of the IPC in
the three CCs may come under the ambit of
the offences specified in Section 2(b) of the
Act.
However,
undoubtedly,
mere
invocation of certain Sections of the IPC
could not and would not preclude the Court
from, in a manner of speaking, lifting the
veil, to understand what actually lies
beneath the material, which is sought to be
made the basis for invoking the Act. In
Mohammad Wajid v State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, this
Court stated:

''34. At this stage, we would like
to observe something important. Whenever
an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/ complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or
not.
In
frivolous
or
vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be,
with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines. The Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to
the stage of a case but is empowered to
take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/ registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in
the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs
have been registered over a period of time.
It
is
in
the
background
of
such
circumstances the registration of multiple
FIRs
assumes
importance,
thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as
alleged.'
(emphasis supplied)

24. Our reference supra to lifting
the veil finds resonance in the 'read in
between the lines' approach adverted to in
Mohammad Wajid (supra). Ultimately, the
right to life and liberty guaranteed under
Article 218 of the Constitution of India
cannot be overlooked only due to the
reason that criminal cases have been
registered against a person. It would be
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plainly unwise to accord any unfettered
discretion to the authorities concerned
when it comes to invoking the Act. The
more stringent or penal a provision,
greater the emphasis and requirement for it
to be strictly construed. In Md. Rahim Ali
@ Abdur Rahim v State of Assam, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1695, it was stated:

'45. The debate has long been
settled
that
penal
statutes
must
be
construed strictly [Tolaram Relumal v.
State of Bombay (1954) 1 SCC 961 : (1955)
1 SCR 158 at Para 8; Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej
Ltd (2004) 1 SCC 391 at Paras 57-58;
Govind Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Appropriate
Authority, Income Tax Dept. (2011) 1 SCC
529 at Para 11, and; Commissioner of
Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar
& Company (2018) 9 SCC 1 at Para 24].
Equally, 'If special provisions are made in
derogation to the general right of a citizen,
the statute, in our opinion, should receive
strict construction. ...' ...'9
(emphasis supplied)

25.
Compliance
and
strict
adherence mean that only an eyewash by
making allegations with a view to set up
grounds to justify resort to the Act would
not suffice. Material(s) must be available to
gauge the probability of commission of the
alleged offence(s). Necessarily, this would
have to be of a level higher than being
merely presumptive. We have perused the
FIR-CC 92 of 2023, certain extracts from
the English translation whereof read as
under:

'...giving illusion of selling his
plot, committing treachery, to extort money
and land, amassing illegal money, for
deriving unfair financial physical benefits
through unfair means, earn money through
anti-social activities with which they
maintain them and their families. There is
fear and terror of them in general public.
Due to their fear and terror, no person of
public becomes ready to give witness
against them and to resister case... The
gang leader and the members of the gang
have committed antisocial activities. This
gang leader and his active members are
involved
in
committing
anti-social
activities. Therefore, it is not justified for
the above accused to remain free between
general public. Keeping in view the crimes
committed by them... ' (sic)

26. While the three CCs find
reference in the FIR-CC 92 of 2023, a
glance at the afore-extract would exhibit a
certain vagueness. In our considered
opinion, the same would not meet the
threshold requirement to enable recourse
to the Act. Obviously, the allegations in the
CCs are yet to be adjudicated finally by a
competent court. We may hasten to add
that not for a minute are we to be
misunderstood to mean that the Act cannot
be invoked basis pending cases. Of course,
it can be. However, the case(s) against the
person(s) qua whom the Act is to be
invoked cannot be run of-the-mill - it must
be serious. The severity required for the
underlying case(s), we think, ought not to
be judicially strait jacketed as a lot would
turn on the specific peculiarities of each
case. The situation would be very different
though, if the allegations levelled in the
underlying case(s) had been proved at trial
- it could have been a good ground to
sustain and justify action under the Act. In
that scenario, we would have ordinarily
refrained from any interdiction. In the
present matter, for the three CCs, as trial
has yet to commence/is continuing/has not
been concluded, for the present, there
remain
only
indications
and
openendedness to the allegations. In other
words, in praesenti, the underlying CCs do
not appear to fall within the net of
'violence, or threat or show of violence, or
5 All. Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
219
intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with
the object of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage', as mandated
under Section 2(b) of the Act. The situation,
thus, would clearly operate to the benefit of
the appellants. As the Ccs referred to in the
FIR are three, we are not required to deal
with Shraddha Gupta (supra).

27. The matter is capable of
being looked at from a different lens. The
complainant(s)/informant(s) in the three
Ccs have resorted to their remedies under
criminal law. In fact, a fourth CC, as
informed by learned counsel for R5, also
stands lodged against the appellants.
Assuming that all the allegations in the
three (or four, including the CC not
referred to in the FIR) CCs are correct,
there is no mention of any instance, postregistration of the said CCs, of the
appellants implementing/acting on the said
alleged
threats.
The
complainant(s)/
informant(s) have also resorted, where
required, to civil proceedings. In the
overall picture that emerges from the
above, resort to the Act by the State seems
premature and uncalled for."

9. In the instant case, the first
information report itself had been lodged
on the basis of the fact that the petitioner
alongwith the other gangsters in his gang
was indulging in offences like theft and
was consequentially earning money. He
submits that a bald allegation like this in
fact was an arbitrary act on the part of the
police. He further submits that when the
petitioner had stated in paragraph 16 of this
writ petition that no provisions of Rule
5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 were
followed then, in answer, a very casual
reply had been given. For ready reference
the paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition
and paragraph no. 21 of the counter
affidavit, which was the reply to the
paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition are
being reproduced here as under:

 "(Paragraph no. 16 of the writ
petition)

16- यह कि उत्तर प्रदेश किरोह बन्द एवं समाज
कवरोधी किया-िलाप (किवारण) कियमावली 2021 िे कियम 5
(i) (ii) (iii) िा अिुपालि िहीं किया िया है। इस सन्दर्भ में
यहााँ यह कवकशष्ट रूप से उल्लेखिीय है कि कियमावली िे कियम 3
में यह स्पष्ट रूप से वकणभत / उपबकन्धत है कि किरोहचार्भ संकिप्त रूप
में िहीं बकल्ि पुकलस आयुक्त/ कजला मकजस्रेर् / वररष्ठ पुकलस
अधीिि/पुकलस अधीिि िी संयुक्त बैठि में सम्यि रूप से
कवचार-कवमशभ िे पश्चात् अिुमोकदत किया जावेिा, परन्तु याची िे
प्रिरण में कजला मकजस्रेर्/वररष्ठ पुकलस अधीिि / पुकलस अधीिि
िी संयुक्त बैठि िहीं हुई है, यह तथ्य प्रस्ताविा संस्तुकत व अिुमोदि
िे पररशीलि से र्ली प्रिार कसद्ध व प्रमाकणत होता है।"

"(Paragraph no. 21 of the
counter affidavit)

21- यह कि याकचिा िा प्रस्तर सं0-16 में वकणभत
िथि असत्य एवं किराधार है, स्वीिार िहीं है, इसिे उत्तर में यह
िहिा है कि वररष्ठ पुकलस अधीिि मुरादाबाद द्वारा पुकलस
अधीिि (ििर), जिपद मुरादाबाद िेत्राकधिारी िायाभलय / िोडल
अकधिारी, जिपद मुरादाबाद एवं प्रर्ारी किरीिि, थािा कसकवल
लाईन्स, मुरादाबाद िी आख्या व संलग्ि साक्ष्य / प्रपत्र िा िहि
अध्ययि व पररशीलि िर उत्तर प्रदेश किरोहबन्द और समाज कवरोध
किया-िलाप (किवारण) अकधकियम, 1986 िे अधीि िी ियी
िायभवाही िी संस्तुकत िे आधार पर किरोह चार्भ कडकस्रक्र् मकजस्रेर्,
मुरादाबाद द्वारा अिुमोकदत किया िया है। अतः उत्तर प्रदेश किरोहबंद
एवं समाज कवरोधी कियािलाप कियमावली, 2021िे कियम-5
िा पूणभतः अिुपालि किया िया है।"

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner stated that despite the fact that no
casualness had to be there and everything,
as per Rule 17 of the Gangsters Rules,
2021, had to be done after full application
of
mind,
the
respondents
i.e.
State
Authorities
while
filing
the
counter
affidavit in paragraph no. 28 had stated that
the petitioner had indulged in activities
which were to be found in Chapter XII and
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
XVII of the I.P.C. Further, it was stated in
paragraph no. 28 and much emphasis was
laid on it that the petitioner was being
searched for and that he was absconding
and
was
not
cooperating
in
the
investigation. Learned counsel for the
petitioner since has relied upon paragraph
no. 28 of the counter affidavit, the same is
being reproduced here as under:

"28- यह कि याकचिा िा प्रस्तर सं0-25 में
वकणभत िथि याची िे मात्र अपिे बचाव में किया है, अस्वीिार है।
इसिे उत्तर में यह िहिा है कि याची व अन्य सहअकर्युक्तिण िा
एि संिकठत किरोह है, कजसिा वह सकिय सदस्य है, जो अपिे तथा
अपिे साकथयों िे आकथभि व र्ौकति लार् पूकतभ िे उद्देश्य से
र्ारतीय दण्ड कवधाि िे अध्याय 12 व 17 में वकणभत अपराध
िाररत िरिे िा अभ्यस्त है तथा याची िे कवरूद्ध िैंिस्र्र एक्र् िी
िायभवाही किये जािे िे प्रथम दृष्टया साक्ष्य पाये जािे पर िैंिस्र्र
एक्र् में आरोकपत किया िया है। याची व अन्य सहअकर्युक्तिण द्वारा
िाररत घर्िा िो देखते हुए थािा िेत्र व अन्य थािा िेत्र में र्य व
आतंि िा माहौल व्याप्त हो िया है कजसिे िारण जिता िा िोई
िवाह इििे कवरूद्ध िवाही व प्रथम सूचिा ररपोर्भ पंजीिृत िरािे िा
साहस िहीं िर पाता है कजसिा समाज में स्वच्छंद कवचरण िरिा
जिकहत में िहीं है।

इसिे अकतररक्त यह िहिा है कि प्रश्नित अकर्योि
िी कववेचिा में याची द्वारा सहयोि किये जािे हेतु उसिी तलाश िी
जा रही है, परन्तु याची द्वारा कववेचिा में सहयोि िहीं किया जा रहा
है और वह फरार चल रहा है। प्रश्नित अकर्योि िी कववेचिा
प्रचकलत है और साक्ष्य संिलि िायभवाही िी जा रही है तथा आरोप
पत्र साक्ष्य संिलि िे अर्ाव में अर्ी ति प्रेकित िहीं िया है।"

11.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner states that petitioner was in jail
ever since 01.11.2023 in connection with
the Case Crime No. 598 of 2023, under
Sections 302, 307/34 and 120-B of I.P.C.
and therefore for the respondents to say that
he was absconding and he was not
cooperating in the investigation was a
blasphemy and for this he submits that not
only the first information report be quashed
but the deponents of the counter affidavit
be also punished and be brought to book.
12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner thereafter submitted that the
petitioner was a peace loving law abiding
individual and that he was a teacher in the
Junior High-School, Mahalakpur Vidyalay,
Moradabad. He was definitely not a
gangster and that he had no connection
with Prabhakar Singh who was allegedly
the gang leader. In fact, he was not even
named in the first information report which
had given rise to Case Crime No. 558 of
2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, states that the lodging of the first
information report had to be preceded by a
gang-chart which in its turn had to be
preceded by a joint meeting. In the instant
case since neither there was a joint meeting
nor a gang-chart was prepared according to
the rules, the first information report itself
was a waste paper. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that when the gangchart was approved without being preceded
by a joint meeting then even the approval
of the gang-chart was a waste paper. Since
the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Moradabad had put their signatures to their
approval without any dates and the
Superintendent of Police had approved the
gang-chart on 19.11.2023, while the Nodal
Officer had so approved the gang-chart on
17.11.2023,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, therefore, stated that neither was
there any prior discussion nor was the
gang-chart prepared as per Rules 16 and 17
of the Gangster Rules, 2021. Learned
counsel for the petitioner stated that the
judgment of this Court dated 28.08.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 12808 of 2023 (Rahul Saxena Alias
Bhola/Bholu vs. State of U.P. And 3
Others) was not applicable in the case of
the petitioner as it had only stated that there
was no requirement of any notice of joint
meeting to the petitioner. He submits that
5 All. Kamalveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
221
definitely no notice was mandatory to the
petitioner but what was mandatory, was
that a joint meeting which ought to have
preceded the preparation of the gang-chart
and in the instant case, the respondents had
not come up with the case that the gangchart was preceded by a "due discussion".

13. Similarly, learned counsel for
the petitioner had also invited the attention
of the Court to the judgment of this Court
dated 07.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 9428 of 2024 (Rajeev
Kumar @ Raju vs. State of U.P. And 2
Others) and had submitted that the
judgment had stated that if the dates were
not mentioned in the gang-chart under the
signatures of signing authorities, then it did
not mean that a joint meeting had not
preceded the preparation of the gang-chart.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated
that this judgment did not apply to the case
of the petitioner as it had only mentioned
about the signatures on the approval of the
gang-chart. There was no mention of the
joint meeting before the preparation of the
gang-chart.

14.