# Navneet Sachan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1300
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-26
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16946 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Madan Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/navneet-sachan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54761
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules,
2021 was a substantive application of
mind by the authorities or a mere empty
formality thereby vitiating FIR under the
Act.

Headnotes
U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3 -
group of persons acting either singly or
collectively with the object of disturbing
public order or of gaining any undue
temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage - Section 5 - Preparation of
gang chart - due discussion must disclose
- disturbance of the public order - gaining
of any undue temporal pecuniary material
or other advantage - writ petition and
application allowed
Held:
The Court is of the view that even if the first
information report did not mention the details
with regard to the disturbance of the public
order and gaining of any undue temporal
pecuniary material or other advantage but the
"due discussion" definitely ought to have
mentioned about them. The "due discussion"
was an empty formality and, therefore, Rule
5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 was not
followed. It is a discussion which is privately
done between the police officials and the district
administration and they need not be made open
to the public as well as the ingredients of the
due discussion may not even be mentioned
in the first information report but when the due
discussion was brought before the Court , it
should make out from the reading of it that the
due discussion was not done summarily but the
officials had applied their minds to the effect
that the accused under the Gangster Act, 1986
was disturbing public order and was gaining
pecuniary and temporal advantage. The due
discussion should not be an empty formality.
The Court found that the gang leader, Abbas
Ansari, was transferred to Kasganj Jail has also
not been considered in the due discussion. Also,
in between the passing of the judgment and
order of the dated 15.5.2024 in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 2094 of 2024 and till the
lodging of the instant First Information Report
no new facts had been brought on record to
illustrate that the petitioner was still functioning
as a member of any gang and that he was
disturbing public order and making any undue
temporal pecuniary material or other advantage.
[Para 10]
The writ petition stands allowed. The Application
u/s. 528 BNSS stands allowed and the NonBailable Warrant stands quashed. The writ
petitions vis-a-vis the petitioners in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. - 17602 of 2024 and in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 18422 of 2024
are also accordingly, allowed. First Information
Report dated 31.8.2024 given rise to Case Crime
No. 556 of 2024, under Sections 2/3 of
9 All. Navneet Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1301
Gangster Act, 1986 is quashed. [Para 11 and
12] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan vs. State of
U.P. And Others (2024) 128 ACC 876;
Kamalveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors,
2025 SCC OnLine All 3141 - relied on.

List of Acts/Statutes
U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986; Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021; Indian Penal Code, 1860
List of Keywords
Gangster Act, 1986; Gangster Rules, 2021;
Gang Chart; Due Discussion; Jail; illegal
activities on jail premises; Disturbance of
public order; Gain of pecuniary and
temporal advantage

Appearance of Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: Abhishek Kumar
Mishra, Chandrakesh Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: G.A.

## Text

1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending pursuant to the impugned FIR, and
she shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on 26.09.2025 at 11.00 a.m. sharp
to cooperate in the investigation and shall
further cooperate in the investigation till
filing of police report.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

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

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16946 of 2024
With
Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 40591 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 17602 of 2024
With
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 18422 of 2024

Navneet Sachan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Abhishek
Kumar
Mishra,
Sri
Chandrakesh Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue of Consideration
Whether the "due discussion" required
under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules,
2021 was a substantive application of
mind by the authorities or a mere empty
formality thereby vitiating FIR under the
Act.

Headnotes
U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3 -
group of persons acting either singly or
collectively with the object of disturbing
public order or of gaining any undue
temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage - Section 5 - Preparation of
gang chart - due discussion must disclose
- disturbance of the public order - gaining
of any undue temporal pecuniary material
or other advantage - writ petition and
application allowed
Held:
The Court is of the view that even if the first
information report did not mention the details
with regard to the disturbance of the public
order and gaining of any undue temporal
pecuniary material or other advantage but the
"due discussion" definitely ought to have
mentioned about them. The "due discussion"
was an empty formality and, therefore, Rule
5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 was not
followed. It is a discussion which is privately
done between the police officials and the district
administration and they need not be made open
to the public as well as the ingredients of the
due discussion may not even be mentioned
in the first information report but when the due
discussion was brought before the Court , it
should make out from the reading of it that the
due discussion was not done summarily but the
officials had applied their minds to the effect
that the accused under the Gangster Act, 1986
was disturbing public order and was gaining
pecuniary and temporal advantage. The due
discussion should not be an empty formality.
The Court found that the gang leader, Abbas
Ansari, was transferred to Kasganj Jail has also
not been considered in the due discussion. Also,
in between the passing of the judgment and
order of the dated 15.5.2024 in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 2094 of 2024 and till the
lodging of the instant First Information Report
no new facts had been brought on record to
illustrate that the petitioner was still functioning
as a member of any gang and that he was
disturbing public order and making any undue
temporal pecuniary material or other advantage.
[Para 10]
The writ petition stands allowed. The Application
u/s. 528 BNSS stands allowed and the NonBailable Warrant stands quashed. The writ
petitions vis-a-vis the petitioners in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. - 17602 of 2024 and in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 18422 of 2024
are also accordingly, allowed. First Information
Report dated 31.8.2024 given rise to Case Crime
No. 556 of 2024, under Sections 2/3 of
9 All. Navneet Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1301
Gangster Act, 1986 is quashed. [Para 11 and
12] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan vs. State of
U.P. And Others (2024) 128 ACC 876;
Kamalveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors,
2025 SCC OnLine All 3141 - relied on.

List of Acts/Statutes
U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986; Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021; Indian Penal Code, 1860
List of Keywords
Gangster Act, 1986; Gangster Rules, 2021;
Gang Chart; Due Discussion; Jail; illegal
activities on jail premises; Disturbance of
public order; Gain of pecuniary and
temporal advantage

Appearance of Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: Abhishek Kumar
Mishra, Chandrakesh Mishra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh, J.)

 1. Heard Sri Daya Shankar
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra and Sri
Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner in CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT
PETITION No. - 16946 of 2024 and in
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. -
40591 of 2024; Sri Upendra Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the petitioner in
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.
- 17602 OF 2024; Sri Prabha Shanker
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.
- 18422 OF 2024 and Sri Manish Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Sri J.K. Upadhyay and Sri
Rupak Chaube, learned counsel for the
State.

 2. The petitioner has challenged
the
First
Information
Report
dated
31.8.2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred
to as the Gangster Act, 1986) which had
given rise to Case Crime No. 0556 of 2024,
Police Station Karvi Kotwali Nagar,
District - Chitrakoot.

3. Sri Daya Shankar Mishra,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Chandrakesh Mishra and Sri Abhishek
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
argued
that
the
first
information report which was lodged under
Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act, 1986 is
dependent on the rules of Uttar Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Rules,
2021
(hereinafter
referred to as the Gangster Rules, 2021).
He has submitted that as per the rules, there
has to be, before the lodging of the first
information report, a preparation of the
gang chart which is as per Rules 5(1) of the
Gangster Rules, 2021. The In-charge of
police station has to prepare a gang chart
wherein are mentioned the criminal details
of a particular gang. The gang chart
thereafter is presented as per Rule 5(2) of
the Gangster Rules, 2021 to the District
Head
of
Police
after
a
clear
recommendation
of
the
Additional
Superintendent
of
Police
mentioning
therein the detailed activities in relation to
all the persons of the said gang. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Gangster
Rules, 2021 before a gang chart is prepared
it has to be approved, but not summarily. It
is approved only after a due discussion
is done in a joint meeting of the
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commissioner
of
Police,
District
Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police
and Superintended of Police. The other
provisions with regard to how the gang
chart has to be prepared are contained in
Rules 5(3)(b), 5(3)(c), 5(3)(d) and 5(3)(e)
of the Gangster Rules, 2021.

4. Since learned counsel for the
petitioner heavily relied upon Rule 5 of the
Gangster Rules, 2021, the same is 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 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 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).

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner to make the record straight
submitted that on the basis of the base case
numbered as Case Crime No. 88 of 2023
for which the first information report was
lodged on 10.2.2023 the gang-chart vis-avis the petitioner was prepared. In the base
case the petitioner was not named but only
one Prahlad Sahani had mentioned his
name and he was implicated in the Case
Crime No. 88 of 2023. Therefore on the
basis of it a first information report was
lodged under Section 3/2 of the Gangster
9 All. Navneet Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1303
Act, 1986. On 29.1.2024 when the first
information report had given rise to Case
Crime No. 0079 of 2024, it was challenged
before the High Court by means of a writ
petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 2094 of 2024 (Navneet Sachan vs.
State of U.P. And 2 Others) and the High
Court by an order dated 15.5.2024 had
quashed the first information report dated
29.1.2024. However, in the judgment and
order passed by the High Court dated
15.5.2024, it was provided that the
respondents
could
initiate
fresh
proceedings against the petitioner if it was
so required after following the due
procedure of law.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that to initiate the
proceeding again under the Gangster Act,
the In-charge of Police had prepared a gang
chart and in it had mentioned the details of
the criminal activities of the gang and had
presented it to the District Head of the
Police on 25.8.2024. This document has
annexed as Annexure No. CA-3 to the
counter affidavit filed in the writ petition.
In the report which the Sub-Inspector
Thana Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District
Chitrakoot had submitted on 25.8.2024 it
was stated that in the Jail of Chitrakoot
where Abbas Ansari was arrested, his wife
Nikhat Bano was meeting him illegally and
on 10.2.2023 a secret information was
received that illegal activities were going
on in the jail premises. The wife of Abbas
Ansari was visiting Abbas Ansari for many
hours together. On the basis of this
information, the District Magistrate had
visited the jail and had inspected the
barrack and had found that Abbas Ansari
was not in the barrack where he was
supposed to be. When the barrack of Abbas
Ansari was checked, it was found that it
had two mobile phones, gold jewellery and
Rs. 21,000/-. Also 12 Saudi Riyals were
found and this had given rise to Case Crime
No. 88 of 2023, under Sections 387, 222,
186, 506, 201, 120-B, 195-A, 34 of I.P.C.
read with sections 7/8/13 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and the other offences
which were reported were with regard to
Section 42(b) and Section 54 of Prisoners
Act. All the sections were read alongwith
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act. During investigation, Section 451, 511
of I.P.C. were added. Investigation when
had
commenced
then
vis-a-vis
the
petitioner,
Navneet
Sachan,
also
an
investigation
had
commenced
under
Section 387, 506, 201, 120-B, 195-A, 34,
451, 511 of I.P.C. read with section 8 of the
Anti Corruption Act, 42(b), 54 of Prisoners
Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act. It was reported that the
gangs leader Abbas Ansari had been
transferred
from
Naini
Central
Jail,
Prayagraj to the Chitrakoot Jail. After the
incident had occurred which had led to the
lodging of the first information report dated
10.2.2023 which had given rise to Case
Crime No. 88 of 2023, Abbas Ansari was
transferred on 14.2.2023 to the District Jail
of Kasganj. It has been stated that Abbas
Ansari was a very dreaded criminal and
because of his threats, no one could give
evidence against him. When investigation
was going on, it was found that the gang
leader Abbas Ansari with other gang
members was very much active. It was also
stated in the report that against the gang
leader Abbas Ansari proceedings were also
initiated under the National Security Act
(NSA). A report was, therefore, sent for the
initiation
of
proceedings
under
the
Gangster Act, 1986. This report was dated
25.8.2024.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has thereafter submitted that this
report as per Rule 5(3)(a) of Gangster
Rules, 2021 came for the approval before
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Commissioner of Police and the District
Magistrate and a joint meeting was held
between the Superintended of Police,
Chitrakoot
and
District
Magistrate,
Chitrakoot on 29.8.2024. In the joint
meeting, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that, it had to be seen that the
two officials did not simply approve the
gang chart summarily but had done so after
a due discussion in which they had prima
facie found that the gang was, either by
means of violence or by threat or by show
of violence or by intimidation or coercion,
disturbing public order or was in the
process
of
gaining
undue
temporal
pecuniary, material or other advantages for
the gang members. Learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the entire due
discussion dated 29.8.2024, by which the
gang chart was approved, did not show
such an application of mind during the due
discussion which could show that the gang
members and its leader were indulging in
violence or threat or show of violence to
disturb public order or to gain any undue
temporal pecuniary material or other
advantages
for
themselves.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner, therefore, states
that a due discussion was one which was a
routine discussion which has only approved
the report which was sent by the Inspector
In-charge of the Thana Karvi Kotwali
Nagar on 25.8.2024. Learned counsel for
the petitioner relying upon the judgments
of this Court reported in (2024) 128 ACC
876; (Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan vs.
State of U.P. And Others) and in
Kamalveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine All 3141
submitted that the prior joint meeting for
the approval of the gang chart had to
disclose that there was a due discussion
wherein it was found that the gang was
indulging in violence etc. for disturbing of
public order and was in the process of
gaining any undue temporal pecuniary
material or other advantage. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that after the judgment and order of the
High Court was passed in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 2094 of 2024 on
15.5.2024 and before the instant impugned
first information report was lodged on
31.8.2024 the activities of the petitioner in
between 15.5.2024 to 31.8.2024 had also to
be looked into and reported.

7. In the instant case, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that when
the gang leader was transferred on
14.2.2023 to the District Jail, Kasganj and
when the petitioner could not meet him at
all then there was absolutely no evidence of
the fact that the petitioner alongwith the
alleged gang leader was operating as a
gang. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that an argument was made
by
the
learned
Additional
Advocate
General that the petitioner was not
participating in the sessions trial which was
going on vis-a-vis the Case Crime No. 88
of 2023. In reply to this argument of the
State the learned counsel for the petitioner
has attached the entire order-sheet of the
case which shows that the petitioner had
been attending the court and had never
been absconding. He did not appear only
on such dates when his counsel had moved
the application for his exemption. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits
that none of the anti social activities which
were delineated in the definition clause
under Section 2b (i to xxv) of the Gangster
Act, 1986 were to be found while branding
the petitioner as a gangster.

8. Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Rupak Chaube, however, has submitted
that the petitioner, Navneet Sachan, was
9 All. Navneet Sachan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1305
supplying money regularly to the Jail
Authorities
and
was
bribing
them
constantly and that the gang was involved
in various activities which could be said
were such which would brand the petitioner
as a member of the gang. He has submitted
that since the petitioner was implicated
under Section 387 of IPC, therefore, it
could be said that he had committed crimes
under Chapter XVI of IPC. Further, since
he
was
involved
in
the
criminal
intimidation as per Section 506 of IPC, he
was a gangster having done activities under
Chapter XVII of I.P.C. and, therefore, the
requirements of Clause 2(b) of the
Gangster Act, 1986 was satisfied. Still
further he submitted that the petitioner was
involved
under
Section
2b(xxv)
of
Gangster Act, 1986 as his activities were
impacting the security of State and public
order.
Learned
Additional
Advocate
General states that non-disclosure of the
name of the accused in the first information
report would not be a ground for the quashing
of the first information report. He also
submitted that if there was no disclosure of
the specific details of how the petitioner was
disturbing public order and making any
undue temporal pecuniary material or other
advantage then also there was nothing wrong.
Learned
Additional
Advocate
General
submitted that the Rule 5(3)(a) of Gangster
Rules, 2021 was adhered to systematically
and it matters little if the due discussion had
not mentioned the disturbance of public order
and the gain of any undue temporal pecuniary
material
or
other
advantage.
Learned
Additional
Advocate
General
further
submitted that there was proper compliance
of Rules 16 and 17 of the Gangster Rules,
2021 also when the gang chart was
forwarded.

9. Having heard Sri Daya Shankar
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra and Sri
Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Rupak Chaube, learned counsel for the
State, this Court is of the view that a
perusal
of
the
joint
meeting
dated
29.8.2024 shows that verbatim the report
dated 25.8.2024 of the Sub-Inspector of the
thana had been reproduced and that there is
absolutely no prima facie finding with
regard to the fact as to how the petitioner as
an alleged member of the gang was
disturbing public peace and gaining any
undue temporal pecuniary material or other
advantage.

10. We are definitely of the view
that even if the first information report did
not mention the details after forwarding the
gang chart with regard to the disturbance of
the public order and with regard to the
gaining of any undue temporal pecuniary
material or other advantage but the due
discussion
definitely
ought
to
have
mentioned about them. In the absence of
the prima facie finding in the due
discussion with regard to the disturbance of
public order by the petitioner and also with
regard to the gains of any undue temporal
pecuniary material or other advantage, we
are of the view that the due discussion was
an empty formality and, therefore, Rule
5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 was not
followed.
The
due
discussion
is
a
discussion which is privately done between
the
police
officials
and
the
district
administration and they need not be made
open to the public and in fact the
ingredients of the due discussion may not
even be mentioned in the first information
report but when the due discussion was
brought before us i.e. the Court, the Court
should make out from the reading of it that
the due discussion was not done summarily
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
but the officials had applied their minds to
the effect that the accused under the
Gangster Act, 1986 was disturbing public
order and was gaining pecuniary and
temporal advantage. The Uttar Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 is an act which
makes the use of certain earlier cases in
which the accused is already being tried
and if the accused is to be now further tried
under the Gangster Act, 1986 then special
reasons have to be given after due
discussion in a joint meeting between the
police
officials
and
the
district
administration. The due discussion should
not be an empty formality. We also find
that the gang leader, Abbas Ansari, was
transferred to Kasganj Jail on 14.2.2023
and this aspect of the matter has also not
been considered in the due discussion.
Also, we find that in between the passing of
the judgment and order of the High Court
dated 15.5.2024 in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 2094 of 2024 and till the
lodging of the instant First Information
Report dated 31.8.2024, no new facts had
been brought on record to illustrate that the
petitioner was still functioning as a member
of any gang and that he was disturbing
public order and making any undue
temporal pecuniary material or other
advantage.

11. Thus for the reasons mentioned
above, the writ petition stands allowed. Also
the Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40591
of 2024 stands allowed and the Non-Bailable
Warrant stands quashed. The writ petitions
vis-a-vis the petitioners in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. - 17602 of 2024 and in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 18422 of
2024 are also accordingly, allowed.

12. The First Information Report
dated 31.8.2024 which had given rise to
Case Crime No. 556 of 2024, under
Sections 2/3 of Gangster Act, 1986 is
quashed. Also the gang-chart on the basis
of which the first information report was
lodged is quashed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1306
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3893 of 2017

Sweta Jaiswal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Bipin Kumar, Sri Mohd. Naushad
Siddiqui

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the refusal of maintenance to the
revisionist-wife
under
Section
125(4)
Cr.P.C. was sustainable when the Family
Court treated a voidable marriage under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 as a bar to maintenance, despite
absence of any decree of nullity and
without establishing that the wife was
living separately without sufficient cause.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.125,
s.125(4)
-
Maintenance
-
Living
separately "without sufficient cause" -
Burden and findings - Perversity - Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955
-
s.12(1)(c)
-
Voidable marriage - Effect in absence of
decree of nullity - Right to maintenance
- Remand- Revision allowed.

HELD: