# Mohd. Muslim v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1194
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-03
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 9360 of 2009
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-muslim-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50872
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Approval of gang chart
without
proper
discussion
and
consideration by District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 420, 406,
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3
- Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7,
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rule No.
5,7,13,16 and 17. (Para - 19,20,21)

(B) The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - two
essential ingredients to constitute a gang -
'violence' or 'disturbance of public order' -
indulged in by a group of persons, acting
either singly or collectively, for the purpose of
pecuniary gain etc. - violence or disturbance of
public order alone are not the sine qua non of
a gang as defined under the Act of 1986. (Para
- 7,14)

Applicant and co-accused allegedly acquired land
from a Scheduled Caste person without permission
and intimidated others - Unauthorized land sale -
False claims of land ownership and layout approval -
Failure to provide receipts for payments - Refusal to
refund and threats - DM approved gang chart without
proper discussion or recording reasons - No specific
offenses disturbing public order or committed for
financial gain were mentioned (Rule 13) - Quick
action was taken, violating Gangster Rules, 2021, and
Article 21 of Indian Constitution - process was
mechanical and malicious, depriving applicants of
liberty - Procedural compliance is crucial in Gangster
Act cases to prevent abuse of power.(Para -
3,19,20,21)

HELD: - Authorities should have considered legal
basis and justification when preparing and approving
gang-charts under the 1986 Act. They paid lip service
to the legislative mandate, conducting the process as
a ritualistic formality without due application of mind.
This led to a civil dispute relating to land being
interpreted as criminality, and Section 2/3 of the
Gangster Act being added to the criminal case. The
initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings
were
deemed
persecution
and
harassment,
amounting to abuse of the law and court process.
Entire proceedings quashed against applicant.
(Para -22,23)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. It is also needless to say that if the
petitioners of both the petitions file their
discharge application, taking all pleas and
grounds available to them, the said
application shall be decided strictly in
accordance
with
law
by
affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned and that order must be speaking
and reasoned order so that it could be
understood that the learned trial court has
applied its judicious mind.

26. Both the petition under Sections
482 Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed.

27. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1194
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 9360 of 2009

Mohd. Muslim ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Imran Ullah, Sri Vineet Vikram

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Approval of gang chart
without
proper
discussion
and
consideration by District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 420, 406,
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3
- Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7,
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rule No.
5,7,13,16 and 17. (Para - 19,20,21)

(B) The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - two
essential ingredients to constitute a gang -
'violence' or 'disturbance of public order' -
indulged in by a group of persons, acting
either singly or collectively, for the purpose of
pecuniary gain etc. - violence or disturbance of
public order alone are not the sine qua non of
a gang as defined under the Act of 1986. (Para
- 7,14)

Applicant and co-accused allegedly acquired land
from a Scheduled Caste person without permission
and intimidated others - Unauthorized land sale -
False claims of land ownership and layout approval -
Failure to provide receipts for payments - Refusal to
refund and threats - DM approved gang chart without
proper discussion or recording reasons - No specific
offenses disturbing public order or committed for
financial gain were mentioned (Rule 13) - Quick
action was taken, violating Gangster Rules, 2021, and
Article 21 of Indian Constitution - process was
mechanical and malicious, depriving applicants of
liberty - Procedural compliance is crucial in Gangster
Act cases to prevent abuse of power.(Para -
3,19,20,21)

HELD: - Authorities should have considered legal
basis and justification when preparing and approving
gang-charts under the 1986 Act. They paid lip service
to the legislative mandate, conducting the process as
a ritualistic formality without due application of mind.
This led to a civil dispute relating to land being
interpreted as criminality, and Section 2/3 of the
Gangster Act being added to the criminal case. The
initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings
were
deemed
persecution
and
harassment,
amounting to abuse of the law and court process.
Entire proceedings quashed against applicant.
(Para -22,23)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. A.K. Dixit Vs St. of U.P., 1987 (34) ACC 164:
1987 ACTR 230: AIR 1987 (All) 235 (All HC, FB)

2. V. Shukla Vs St. of U.P., 2019 (1) ARC 299
2 All. Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1195
3. S. Gupta Vs St. of U.P., (2019) 1 A.Cr.R. 2

4. A.K. Dixit Vs St. of U.P., 2007 (2) ACC 683

5. Alld. Parvez Vs St. of U.P., 2021 Crl.J. 4034
(All)(LB)

6. S. Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2022) 17
S.C.R. 622 (Para 10) (635-B-G)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vineet Vikram, learned
counsel for the applicant and learned AGA
for the State-respondents.

2. The instant Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the
applicants
for
quashing
the
entire
proceedings pending in the court of learned
Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad in
Case No.97/08, under Sections 147, 148,
323, 504, 506, 420, 406 IPC and Section
2/3 of Gangster Act.

3. The facts of the case in brief are as
follows:

FIR of this case has been lodged
by opposite party no.2 (Mohd. Arif) against
the applicant and other co-accused persons
on 16.06.2007 at 08:10 p.m., in case crime
no.113/07 under Sections 147, 148, 323,
504, 506, 406, 420, 34 IPC and Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station-Kareli,
District-Allahabad.
The
allegation against the applicant and other
accused persons is that they have formed a
society and were doing plotting work by
the name of Alina City and were taking
plots for the purpose of sale and they were
involved in taking advance money. It is also
alleged that first informant also made
contact with the society in its office. He
was informed that the land in the name of
the society and its lay out has been passed
and all the documents are perfect. He took
plot having area of 200 sq. yard at
Rs.1000/- per sq. yard. It's total cost was
Rs.2 lakhs. The first informant was assured
that after deposit of the total amount of
Rs.2 lakhs, its sale deed shall be executed
in favour of the first informant. As the first
informant was not having the total amount
of Rs.2 lakhs, it was settled that the amount
shall be paid in three installments.
Thereafter, he deposited the total amount of
Rs.75,000/- within six months prior lodging
the FIR. No receipt of payment was given
and after some time, the first informant
knew that the alleged land was belonging to
the Scheduled Caste person and no
permission of sale was obtained from the
District Magistrate, but after intimidation,
the land was acquired by the applicant and
other co-accused persons. It's lay out was
also
not
passed
by
the
Competent
Authority.
Thereafter,
first
informant
changed his idea in purchasing the land and
demanded the money but the same was not
returned and he was extended threat for
dire consequences.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicant that complainant
had lodged the FIR due to pressure of
police and after registration of FIR, he had
given an application to the I.G. Zone,
Allahabad on 12.06.2007 (Annexure-9), in
which he had prayed to expunge the FIR
lodged by him on 10.06.2007.

5. It is further contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant that when no
action
was
taken
on
the
aforesaid
application, the complainant filed a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.8187 of 2007 before this Court for
quashing the impugned FIR registered as
case crime No.113 of 2007, under Sections
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 420/34, 406 IPC
and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. with
the grounds as follow-

"I) Because, the petitioner is the
first informant of the First Information
Report in question and he himself disowns
the allegations made therein.

ii) Because, the First Information
Report is a bundle of concoction and
preposterous allegations and the petitioner
never intended to lodge any report against
the accused arrayed in the First Information
Report.

Iii) Because, the petitioner do no
want to be used as an instrument in the
hands of police for the harassment of
innocent persons to appease the person in
chair.

iv) Because the written report,
which is the basis of the First Information
Report was extorted from the petitioner
under threat and coercion and he did not
willfully submitted the same to the police
to register a case thereon.

v) Because, the impugned First
Information Report is clear cut case of
gross abuse of process of law and is liable
to be quashed with awarding heavy costs."

6. It is further contended that the arrest of
the applicant was stayed vide order dated
16.07.2007 by a Division Bench of this
Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.7933 of 2007. It is further submitted
that amount in question has already been
paid by the main accused (Abrar Ahmad) to
the complainant and on that basis, he
(Abrar Ahmad) was granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 04.10.2007 in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7933
of 2007. It is further submitted that
applicant has no concern with the alleged
society and he has been falsely implicated
in this case, which is mentioned in the
Gang-chart (Annexure-5) at Sl. No.5
bearing case crime No.113 of 2007, under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 406 420,
34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law
Amendment Act and Section 2/3 of U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti-social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, Police Station-Kareli,
District-Allahabad. The same is reproduced
here-in-under respectively:-

GANG-CHART

आपरानि
क इनिहास
अच्छे
S/o मो०
नमया
R/o
95B/ 5
चनकया
P.S.खु
ल्दावाद
रफि
उल्ला
S/o
रहमि
उल्ला
R/o 79
चनकया
P.s
खुल्दावाद
मो०
इमराम
S/o मो०
जहाा R/o
207
चनकया
P.s
खुल्दा.
शेख
अकरार
अहमद
S/o स्व०
फरीद
अहमद
R/o
114
मालवीय
िगर P.s
मुट्ठीगंज
मो०
मुनस्लम
S/o
मो०
नमया
R/o
चनकया
P.sखु
ल्दाबाद
हमजा
उस्माि
S/oउ
स्माि
R/o
106
मेंहदौरी
P.sनश
वकुटी
113/07
U/s
147,14
8,323,
504,50
6,406,
420,34
IPC व
7
नि०ला०
ए.एक्ट
P.S.करे
ली
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
53/01
U/s
307
IPC
P.S.कैंट
✓
✓

91/01
U/s
147,14
8,149,
386,50
4,506,
384,44
8,427,
482,35
2,34
IPC व
7नि०ला
० ए.ऐक्ट
✓
✓
2 All. Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1197
P.s
िूमिगंज
27/01
U/s
147,14
8,149,
352,38
6,504,
506,32
3,365
IPC व
3(1)
Sc/ST
Act ि
2/3
गैगेस्टर
एक्ट
शाहगंज
✓
✓

89/01
U/s
395,39
7,448,
387,
IPC व
7 नि.ला.
एक्ट 2/3
गैंगस्टर
P.S.नसनव
ल लाइि
✓
✓

253/02
U/s
147,14
8,149,
452,33
0,304,
506
IPC व
2/3 गै०
एक्ट
P.S.िूमि
गंज इला०
✓
✓

311/02
U/s
467,46
8,471,
420,50
6,384,
387
IPC व
2/3 गै.
एक्ट P.s
िूमिगंज
इला०
✓
✓

110/01
U/s
307
✓
✓

IPC
P.S.नशव
कुटी
NCR
No.
1/01
U/s
323,50
4 IPC
P.S.नशव
कुटी
✓
✓

6. It is submitted that I.O. has
submitted chargesheet against the five
accused persons having added offence of
Section 2/3 of Gangster Act. It is apparent
that
without
forwarding/
recommending/approval of the gang-chart
from
the
authorities
concerned,
the
chargesheet under the aforesaid section was
submitted. The summary appended to the
charge-sheet is as follows:-

Sir, case above was registered and
investigated so far; place of occurrence was
inspected; witnesses acquainted with the
circumstances of the case were examined;
statement of the plaintiff was also recorded;
having observed all the documentary
evidence against the accused persons as
shown in the coloumn No.3, Mohd. Imran
and others, prima facie case under Sections
147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 420, 447 IPC and
Section 2/3 of Gangster Act is proved.
Accused as shown in coloumn No.2,
Hamza Usman is absconding and against
the other five accused chargesheet have
been submitted and against the absconding
accused,
namely,
Hamza
Usman,
chargesheet will be submitted after his
arrest and prayed for summoning the
witnesses/evidence. It is also submitted that
in chargesheet, there is no violation of
provisions of the Gangster Act disclosed.

7. It is submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the applicants, that
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
even if all allegations in the impugned FIR
and charge-sheet are regarded as true, no
case under Sections 3(1) of the Act of 1986
is made out against the applicants. In order
to support the aforesaid submission,
learned counsel has referred to the
provisions of the gangster Act of 1986. He
submits that there are two essential
ingredients to constitute a gang. The two
essential ingredients, according to learned
counsel for the applicants, are 'violence' or
'disturbance of public order' indulged in by
a group of persons, acting either singly or
collectively, for the purpose of pecuniary
gain etc.

8. It is the learned counsel for the
applicants' submission that none of the
offences charged against the applicant,
either involves violence or the disturbance
of public order. Therefore, even if there be
allegations about pecuniary gain, the
consequences under the Act of 1986 would
not be attracted. He next submits that there
are three base cases registered against the
applicant no.1 and there is only one base
case registered against the applicant nos.2
to 5, on the foot of which the present
prosecution has been launched under
Section 3(1) of the Act of 1986. But, in
each of those crimes, the applicants have
already been enlarged on bail by the court
concerned. Therefore, in the submission of
the learned counsel, the base cases are not
available to provide foundation to the
prosecution to pursue the present case
under the Act of 1986. It is in the last
submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that there is violation of Rule No.
5, 7, 13, 16 and 17 of The Uttar Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021, vitiating the
gang-chart. He has emphasized that nonadherence to these rules has vitiated the
basis of registration of the crime and a
fortiori
the
police
report
and
the
prosecution. He has emphatically submitted
that violation of the aforesaid rule is not
mere omission but it shows that the
proceedings before registering FIR has
been carried out mechanically without
giving heed to the provisions of law and
rules, which are of fundamental importance
as any false and malacious prosecution
entails serious consequances resulting into
the deprivation of life and personal liberty
of the accused person, which cannot be
deprived
except
for
the
procedure
established by law as is enshrined in the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
forwarding, recommending and approving
authorities have not paid any heed or
attention to relevant law and rules, while
exercising their authority with regard to the
preparation and approval of the gang-chart.
The whole exercise on their part has been
carried out without application of mind.

9. In response to the notice issued to
respondents, a counter affidavit was filed
which is duly sworn by Prakash Singh
Yadav, presently posted as Sub-Inspector,
Police Station-Kareli, District-Allahabad,
in which all the allegations and averments
made in the affidavit filed in support of the
application under section 482 cr.p.c. have
been totally denied and it is asserted that
after thoroughly investigation, charge-sheet
was submitted and applicant has formed a
gang and is indulged in comitting crime to
grab the property of the innocent persons.

10. In response to the counter
affidavit filed by the opposite parties,
rejoinder affidavit was filed in which, the
allegations and averments made in the
counter affidavit were denied.

11. On the other hand, learned AGA
vehemently
opposed
the
aforesaid
2 All. Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1199
contentions and submits that applicant is a
members of the gang, which is involved in
committing the anti-social activities and
crimes for pecuniar and temporal gains.

12. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, this Court is of opinion that in
order to consider the submissions of
learned counsel for the applicant as well as
learned counsel for the State, it is
imperative
to
refer
to
the
relevant
provoisions of the Act of 1986, which reads
as follows:

As the Act being a special statute- The
Act is a special statute which has been
enacted for the prevention of and for
coping with gangsterism and anti-social
activities. The Object and reasons as well
as preamble are quoted hereinbelow:-

Objects and reasons of the Act:-

Gangsterism and anti-social activities
influenced the State Legislature in making
introduction of such Act. The objects and
reasons of the Act are that gangsterism and
anti-social activities were on the increase
in the state posing threat to lives and
properties of the citizens. The existing
measures were not found effective enough
to cope with new menace. With a view to
break the gangs by punishing the gangsters
and to nip their conspirational designs, it
was considered necessary to make special
provision for the prevention of and for
coping with gangsters and anti-social
activities in the State. [Ashok Kumar Dixit
v. State of U.P., 1987 (34) ACC 164: 1987
ACFR 230 AIR 1987 (All) 235 (All HC,
FB)].

Preamble of Act.-The Act seeks to
punish declared criminals who have
deliberately chosen the life of crime. The
activities of these professional perpetrators
of organised crimes, violence and orgy has
a far more baneful effect on the health and
morals of the society and its people. If the
activities of such recidivist are subjected to
same punishment as that other ordinary
criminals, the confidence of public in the
efficacy
and
efficiency
of
State
Administration is bound to shake. [Ashok
Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 (34)
ACC 164: 1987 ACTR 230: AIR 1987 (All)
235 (All HC, FB)].

13. It is important to refer to the
relevant provisions of the Act of 1986,
which reads as follows:-

"2. Definitions.--In this Act,--

(a) x x x

(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 (Act no. 2
of 1974), namely--

(i) offences punishable under
Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter
XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act no. 45
of 1860), or

(ii) distilling or manufacturing or
storing or transporting or importing or
exporting or selling or distributing any
liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs,
or other intoxicants or narcotics or
cultivating any plant, in contravention of
any of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act,
1910 (U.P. Act no. 4 of 1910) or the
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 or any other law for
the time being in force, or

(iii)
occupying
or
talking
possession
of
immovable
property
otherwise than in accordance with law, or
setting-up
false
claims
for
title
or
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possession of immovable property whether
in himself or any other person, or (Act no.
61 of 1985)

(iv) preventing or attempting to
prevent any public servant or any witness
from discharging his lawful duties, or

(v) offences punishable under the
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women
and Girls Art, 1956, or

(vi) offences punishable under
section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867
(Act no. 104 of 1956), or

(vii) preventing any person from
offering bids in auction lawfully conducted,
or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf
of any Government department, local body
or public or private undertaking for any
lease or right or supply of goods or work to
be done, or

(viii) preventing or disturbing the
smooth running by any person of his lawful
business profession, trade or employment
or any other lawful activity connected
therewith, or

(ix) offences punishable under
section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, or
in preventing or obstructing any public
election being lawfully held, by physically
preventing the voter from exercising his
electoral rights, or

(x) inciting others to resort to
violence to disturb communal harmony, or

(xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in
public, or

(xii)
terrorising
or
assaulting
employees or owners or occupiers of public or
private undertakings or factories and causing
mischief in respect of their properties, or

(xiii) inducing or attempting to
induce any person to go to foreign countries on
false representation that any employment, trade
or profession shall be provided to him in such
foreign country, or

(xiv) kidnapping or abducting any
person with intent to extort ransom, or

(xv)
diverting
or
otherwise
preventing any aircraft or public transport
vehicle from following its scheduled course;

(xvi) offences punishable under the
Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976;

(xvii) illegally transporting and/or
smuggling of cattle and indulging in acts in
contravention of the provisions in the
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960;

(xviii) human trafficking for purposes
of commercial exploitation, bonded labour,
child labour, sexual exploitation, organ
removing and trafficking, beggary and the like
activities;

(xix) offences punishable under the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1966;

(xx) printing, transporting
and
circulating of fake Indian currency notes;

(xxi) involving in production, sale
and distribution of spurious drugs;

(xxii) involving in manufacture, sale
and transportation of arms and ammunition in
contravention of Sections 5, 7 and 12 of the Arms
Act, 1959;

(xxiii) felling or killing for economic
gains, smuggling of products in contravention of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972;

(xxiv) offences punishable under the
Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979;

(xxv) indulging in crimes that impact
security of State, public order and even tempo of
life.

(c) "gangster" means a member or
leader or organiser of a gang and includes any
person who abets or assists in the activities of a
gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before
or after the commission of such activities or
harbours any person who has indulged in such
activities;

14. A perusal of the aforesaid
provisions
shows
that
violence
or
disturbance of public order alone are not
2 All. Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1201
the sine qua non of a gang as defined under
the Act of 1986. It postulates a group of
persons, who either acting singly or
collectively, employ violence, or threat or
show of violence, or intimidation, or
coercion, ''or otherwise' with the object of
(i) disturbing public order; (ii) or of gaining
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material; or
other advantage for himself or any other
person, indulge in anti-social activities,
enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxii) of subSection (b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1986.

15. It is a well settled cannon of
statutory interpretation that a statute should
be read and understood according to its
plain grammatical meaning, unless that
construction leads to an absurd result, or
defeats the object and the very purpose of
it.

16. Learned counsel for the applicants
has also drawn attention towards the
mandatory compliance with the provisions
of Rule 5, 13, 16 and 17 of the Rules of
2021 framed under the Act of 1986. These
Rules have been made by the State
Government in exercise of powers under
Section 23 of the Act of 1986 to carry out
its purposes. Rules 5, 13, 16 and 17 are
extracted below:

"5.
General
Rules.--(1)
To
initiate proceedings under this Act, the
concerned
In-charge
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
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).
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13.
Specific
statement
of
offences committed for economic, material
and temporal or similar other benefits.-
While writing the abstract below the gangchart and particulars separately with the
gang-chart,
the
particulars
of
those
offences shall be specifically mentioned:

(I) which have been committed
for pecuniary, materialistic and temporal
or similar benefits; or

(ii) which disturb the public
order; or

(iii) which are a ground for
detention under the National Security Act,
1980 (Act No.65 of 1980).

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.

'Throughly studied the gang-chart
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
analyse 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 gangchart 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 gangchart satisfactory grounds exist for taking action
under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial 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."

17. Thus from perusal of the Rules,
all that is required by Rules is that the
2 All. Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1203
Authorities recommending registration of a
case under the Act of 1986 should come to
the
conclusion
with
an
independent
application of mind that a case under the
Act of 1986 ought to be registered.
Likewise, the Authorities approving the
gang-chart also should come to the
conclusion on an independent application
of mind that a case under the Act of 1986
ought to be registered against the accused on
the basis of the activities of the gang. However
there is no prescription for the employment of
particular words to serve as index of due
application of mind.

18. It will be apt to take note of what has
been held and observed by the Apex Court as
well as the High Court with regard to the
interpretation and application of the various
provisions of the Act.

Status of criminal, not punishable-
It is not the status of criminal, but the act which
is made punishable. The activities of gangsters
are offence under the Act since they pose grave
threat to the even tempo of the society and,
therefore, call for sterner and more deterrent
punishment and speedier trial and early
booking. (Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of
U.P.; 1987 (34) ACC 164).

The person who not liable to be
punished- A person is not liable to be punished
under the Act merely because he happens to be
a member of a group. He comes within the
clutches of the Act, when he chooses to join a
group which indulges in any anti-social
activities defined under the Act with use of
force for gaining material and advantage to
himself or any other person. (Ashok Kumar
Dixit Vs. State of U.P.; 1987 (34) ACC 164).

Duty of the State to protect
personal liberty of its citizens- Duty of State
to protect personal liberty of its citizens, the
State is duty bound to protect personal liberty of
its
citizens
beyond
doubt
which
is
fundamentally guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India (Vimal Shukla Vs.
State of U.P.; 2019 (1) ARC 299).

Necessity of deeper application of
mind- The imposition of Gangsters Act calls
for a deeper application of mind and the
satisfaction of the authorities must be based on
a definite opinion against an accused person.
(Shubhankar Gupta Vs. State of U.P.; (2019)
1 A.Cr.R. 2)

Caution
for
misuse
of
the
provisions- The provisions of the Act cannot be
used as a weapon to wreck vengeance or harass
or intimidate innocent citizens or to settle scores
on political or other fronts. The prosecution has
to bear in mind that it has to bring home the
guilt. (Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P.;
2007 (2) ACC 683 Alld.)

Judicial scrutiny of the subjective
satisfaction- In Gangster Act, a subjective
satisfaction is open to limited judicial scrutiny,
therefore, it would be wrong to contend that
there is a complete embargo on the powers of
Court to look at the sufficiency of the ground
from any perspective. [Parvez Vs. State of
U.P.; 2021 Crl.J. 4034 (All)(LB)].

There can be prosecution for
single offence/FIR/chargesheet- 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 inclause (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
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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/chargesheet for any of the antisocial 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 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. [Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of
U.P. and others; (2022) 17 S.C.R. 622
(Para 10)(635-B-G)].

19. Considering the instant case in the
light of the provisions of the Act and relevant
Rules, it is evident that the gang chart in this
case has been approved summarily without
due discussion in the joint meeting of District
magistrate and Superindentent of police, as is
apparent from the perusal of the gang chart.
Furthermore there is no specific mention of
offences which have been committed for
pecuniar, materialistic and temporal or similar
benefits or which disturb the public order as
per Rule 13. Furthermore, quick forwarding
action has been taken in this case without
caring for the compliance of the relevant
rules. There should be satisfaction recorded to
the effect that there is just and legal basis for
taking action under the Act and there is
satisfactory basis for persuing the case. The
satisfaction so recorded should be there by
using the mind independently but in the
instant case the same is missing.

20.

Considering
the
aforesaid
submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties as well as perusal of records, it is
evident from the records that at the time of
approving the gang-chart, District Magistrate
did not apply his mind as no reasons are
recorded by him, resultantly, the lodging of
FIR under Gangster Act is with malafide
intention, in violation of the Gangster Rules,
2021,
which
shows
that
forwarding/
recommencing
authorities
as
well
as
approving authority acted mechanically and
the whole exercise lacks application of mind
on the parts of the authorities concerned. The
applicant has fundamental right to life which
include to live with honour and dignity and
fundamental right of under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India cannot be interferred
with lightly. The applicants have been
deprived of their liberty by the mechanical
excecise/procedure undertaken on the part
of the authorities concerned.

21. The procedural compliance in
cases of gangster Act is of utmost
importance, departure from the due process
of law will give chance and provide fodder
2 All. Kamlesh Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1205
to the vested interests with singular agenda
to
spread
false
narratives.
Verily,
gangsterism poses an ominious threat to
public order. Vile and abhorrent acts of
gangsterism do evoke collective societal
anger and anguish. While the war against
gangsterism must be waged by the State
with unwavering resolve but a civil
democratic society can ill afford sacrificing
the procedural safeguards legislatively
provided, and which is an integrated facet
of the due process of law, at the altar of
perceived peril to public order.

"The Siren Song that the 'end
justifies the means', and that the procedural
safeguards
are
subdervient
to
the
overwhelming need to ensure that the
accused is prosecuted and punished, must
be muzzled by voice of Rule of Law."

22. For all the reasons recorded above, the
court is of the view that at the stage of
preparing and approving the gang-chart on
the basis of materials placed, the competent
Authorities
should
have
satisfied
themselves that there is a legal basis and
justifiction for taking and persuing action
against the accused under the Act of 1986.
At the stage of approval of the gang-chart,
the approving Authority has to be satisfied
that a case for action under the Act of 1986
is made out and that satisfaction should be
reflected from the gang chart and other
records. But in this case, the competent
authorities, unhesitatingly just paid lip
service to the legislative mandate and
unfortunately had undertaken the whole
exercise of preparation and approval of the
gang chart as a ritualistic formality without
due application of mind. Thus, civil dispute
relating to land has been given colour of
criminality and to add insult to injury, in
the course of investigation, Section 2/3 of
Gangster Act has been added in the
criminal case that is unnecessarily given
shape of act of gangsterism and anti social
activities on the part of police and
admistrative authorities. the initiation and
continuation
of
the
entire
criminal
proceedings is persecution and harassment
of the accused , amounting to be sheer
abuse of process of law as well as abuse of
process of court, that is in order to
sotherwise ensure the ends of justice is
liable to be quashed.

23. In such view of the matter, the
entire proceedings pending in the court of
learned Special Judge (Gangster Act),
Allahabad in Case No.97/08, in case crime
no.113/07 under Sections 147, 148, 323,
504, 506, 420, 406 IPC and Section 2/3 of
Gangster Act is, hereby, quashed against
the applicant (Mohd. Muslim).

24. The application is, accordingly,
allowed.

25. A copy of this order be certified to
the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1205
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 10136 of 2023

Kamlesh Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Dhirendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties: