# Smt. Jyoti Suri v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 854
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43062 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-jyoti-suri-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54213
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,667 of 44,848. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39667 for what follows._

854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that an order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 04.09.2025 directing the applicants to file the said compromise deed before the court
concerned which was to be verified by the court concerned. In pursuance of the said order, the
court concerned on 17.09.2025 verified the said compromise. Copy of the same is on record. The
same is not disputed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

4. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the
parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4)
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P.
And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur
and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which
the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

5. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter,
the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings, charge
sheet as well as cognizance order as prayed for by the applicant(s).

6. The present application is allowed.

7. The entire proceedings, charge sheet as well as cognizance order of the aforesaid case are
hereby quashed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 854
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43062 of 2025

Smt. Jyoti Suri ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether proceedings under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and the gang
chart prepared against the applicant were valid, particularly when based on a solitary case and alleged
violations of the Gangster Rules, 2021?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 528, - U.P. Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 2(b) (i) to (xxv), 3 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 126(2), 352, 351(2),
2 All. Smt. Jyoti Suri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
855
308(6) - U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Gangster Rules, 2021 - Rule -
5(3)9a), 5(3)(c), 6, 8, 8(2), 8(3), 10, 10(1), 16, 17, 17(2), 22, 60 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section - 76 : - Application under Section 528 BNSS - filed by applicant against proceedings under the U.P.
Gangster Act - seeking quashing of chargesheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial - FIR registered under Gangster Act based on Case Crime No.406 of 2024 - investigation
completed - chargesheet filed - gang chart prepared - applicant pleaded that Gangster Act cannot be invoked
on solitary case, and Rules 2021 were violated i.e. no joint meeting, no certified copy, false information -
State argued compliance with Rules, joint meeting held, chargesheet attached, no false information, and
Gangster Act permissible even on single case - Court finds - satisfaction recorded in handwriting, chargesheet
date mentioned, Rule 10 does not require certified copy from court, Rule 22 and Supreme Court precedent
(Shraddha Gupta) allow invocation on solitary case - no violation of Rules 2021, precedents cited by applicant
distinguishable - held, Gangster Act can be invoked even on basis of one case and therefore application is
devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Para -21, 25, 26, 27, 29)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Mohd. Arif @ Guddu v. State of U.P.
Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P.
Asim @ Hasim v. State of U.P.
Master @ Ramzan v. State of U.P.
Prabhat Patel v. State of U.P.
Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka
Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 514)
Ambuj Parag Dubey v. State of U.P. (2022 (4) ACR 3878)
Narendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2023)
Anil Mishra v. State of U.P. (2025)
Manoj Maurya v. State of U.P. (2023)
Binni Lala @ Vinod Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. (2023)
Rahul Saxena @ Bhola v. State of U.P. (2023)

LIST OF ACTS
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - U.P.
Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Gangster Rules, 2021 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Gang chart, solitary case, Rule 5(3)(a), Rule 5(3)(c), Rule 8(2), Rule 10(1), Rule 16, Rule 17, Rule 22, Rule
60, certified copy, chargesheet, joint meeting, satisfaction, false information, procedural compliance,
Shraddha Gupta precedent.

CASE ARISING FROM
Special Sessions Trial No.2636 of 2025 - Case Crime No.502 of 2024 (Gangster Act, PS Sihani Gate,
Ghaziabad) - Base case: Case Crime No.406 of 2024 (under BNS, PS Kotwali, Ghaziabad).

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Surendra Tiwari.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Prashant Kumar Singh, A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri Santosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Surendra Tiwari,
learned counsel appearing for the victim of the base case and Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned
AGA for the State.

2. Present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings
of the Special Sessions Trial No.2636 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.502 of 2024 (State of
U.P. vs. Sanjay Suri and Others), under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of
Learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.12,
Ghaziabad as well as Chargesheet dated 09.08.2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated
28.08.2025 issued in the aforesaid proceedings.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged against the applicant on 23.09.2024,
as Case Crime No.502 of 2024, under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Gangster Act'), Police Station Sihani Gate,
District Ghaziabad. Prior to the registration of the said FIR, a gang chart was prepared on
21.09.2024, wherein, the applicant was shown to be involved in a solitary case i.e. Case Crime
No.406 of 2024, under Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2), 308(6) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District
Ghaziabad and the chargesheet was submitted in the aforesaid Case Crime no.406 of 2024 on
20.09.2024 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence vide order dated 23.09.2024.
After submission of chargesheet on 20.09.2024 in the aforesaid Case Crime No.406 of 2024, the
gang chart was prepared by the Authorities on 21.09.2024. Thereafter, the investigation was handed
over to the Investigating Officer, who submitted chargesheet in the present Case Crime no.502 of
2024 on 09.08.2025 and the court concerned took cognizance vide order dated 28.08.2025.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the gang chart detail of
only one case has been mentioned and the applicant has already obtained bail in the base case from
the court concerned on 23.09.2024. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
only on the basis of solitary case, as mentioned in the gang chart, provisions of Gangster Act
cannot be initiated and there is clear violation of Rules framed under the U.P. Gangster and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Gangster Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2021). It
is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that provisions of Rule 5(3)(a) of the
Rules, 2021 has not been followed as no joint meeting had taken place. He further pointed out that
as per Rule 5(3) (c) of the Rules 2021 the gang chart would not have been approved without the
completion of the investigation of the base case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the
Rules, 2021 was not followed, wherein, it is mentioned that no unconfirmed or false information
would be entered in the gang chart. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
provisions of Rule 10 (1) of the Rule, 2021 have also not been followed inasmuch as the certified
copy of the chargesheet was not attached alongwith the gang chart. It is also submitted that the
authorities at the time of preparation of gang chart have violated Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules,
2021, therefore, the impugned chargesheet dated 09.08.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning
order dated 28.08.2025 issued by the Learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court no.12, Ghaziabad are liable to be quashed.
2 All. Smt. Jyoti Suri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
857

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon several
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, which are as follows:-

(i) Shri Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2023 (18)
SCC 265.

(ii) Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1216.

(iii) Master @ Ramzan and Another vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary
Home and Others, reported in 2020 LawSuit (All) 826.

(iv) Asim @ Hasim vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2023 0 Supreme (All)
1722.

(v) Mohd. Arif @ Guddu vs. State of UP and 3 Others, Neutral Citation
No.2024:AHC:111744-DB.

(vi) Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others,
reported in 2024 (1) ADJ 231 (DB). (vii) Prabhat Patel and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3
Others, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:25612 -DB.

7. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the victim of
the base case opposed the prayer made by the applicant and submitted that the gang chart was
prepared in a joint meeting and after due discussion by the authorities concerned, i.e. Forwarding
Authority and the Approving Authority, the joint meeting was held on 21.09.2024. The gang chart
was approved by the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad on the very same day i.e. on 21.09.2024,
therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in preparation of the gang chart and the same was
prepared as per Rule 5(3) (a) of the Rules, 2021.

8. It is further submitted by the learned AGA as well as by the counsel appearing for the
victim of the base case that the gang chart was approved after completion of investigation of the
base case. The investigation of the base case i.e. Case Crime No.406 of 2024 was completed on
20.09.2024 and this fact has been mentioned in the gang chart. It is also submitted that the
chargesheet of the base case has been appended at page 78 of the application, wherein, date of
preparation of chargesheet has been mentioned as 20.09.2024. Thereafter, the gang chart was
prepared on 21.09.2024, therefore, there is no violation of Rule 5(3) (c) of the Rules, 2021.

9. It is also submitted by the learned AGA as well as counsel appearing for the victim of the
base case that Rule 8 of the Rules, 2021 was also followed. Inasmuch as no unconfirmed or false
information was given by the Incharge of police station concerned. The status of the base case has
been mentioned in the gang chart dated 21.09.2024, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity or
violation of Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2021 in preparation of gang chart. It is also submitted that so far
as the Rule 10 of the Rules 2021 is concerned, there is no requirement of filing the certified copy of
the chargehseet issued by the court concerned and the only requirement is that the chargesheet in
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the base case would be attached and the provisions of these Rules have been very well dealt with
by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of Anil Mishra vs. State of U.P. and 2
Others, decided on 18.10.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15515 of 2023, wherein, it
has been held that chargesheet, prepared by the Investigating Officer under his signature should be
attached and it is nowhere required that it has to be a certified copy having been issued by the court
of law. Rule 10 of the Rules, 2021 nowhere says that copy of the chargesheet has to be a copy
certified by the court or a certified copy of the chargesheet issued by the court. It is also submitted
that compliance of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules, 2021 has been done. The Commissioner of Police,
Ghaziabad approved the gang chart after having considered the relevant papers and the evidence on
the same day i.e. 21.09.2024. The competent authority used their independent mind while
forwarding the gang chart.

10. It is further submitted that as per Rule 22 of the Rules 2021, provisions of Gangster Act
can be imposed on the basis of a single case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the
case of Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514,
that a person may be prosecuted under the Gangster Act only on the basis of a solitary case. In last,
it is prayed that the present application is liable to be dismissed since there is no violation of any
Rule of the Rules, 2021.

11. I have heard rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records
as well as several case laws which were relied on by both the sides.

12. In the case of Mohd. Arif @ Guddu (supra) it has been held by Division Bench of this
Court that the authorities signed the pre-typed gang-chart and approved the same, which goes to
show sheer negligence on the part of Authorities. The judgment of Mohd. Arif @ Guddu (supra)
was passed in view of the judgment of Sanni Mishra alias Sanjayan Kumar Mishra (supra) and
Asim @ Hasim (supra). In Sanni Mishra alias Sanjayan Kumar Mishra (supra) also the
Division Bench of this Court has held that signing of pre-printed proforma is prohibited under Rule
17 (2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 and the date of filing the chargesheet in the base case was not
mentioned in the gang chart though the same is required as per Rule 8(3) of the Rules, 2021. In
Paragraph 22 of Sanni Mishra alias Sanjayan Kumar Mishra (supra) a direction for preparation
of gang chart before lodging of the FIR under the Gangster Act, 1986 was issued by this Court. The
Relevant paragraph 22 of the said judgment is reproduced here-under:-

"22. In view of the above, this court lays down following directions for preparation of
gang-chart before lodging FIR under the Gangster Act, 1986 :

(i) Date of filing of chargesheet under base case must be mentioned in Column-6 of the
gang-chart except in cases under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021.

(ii) While forwarding or approving the gang-chart, competent authorities must record
their required satisfaction by writing in clear words, not by signing the printed/typed satisfaction.
2 All. Smt. Jyoti Suri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
859

(iii) There must be material available for the perusal of the court which shows that the
District Magistrate before approving the gang-chart had conducted a joint meeting with the
District Police Chief and held a due discussion for invocation of the Gangster Act, 1986."

13. On perusal of gang-chart of the present case, it is clear that date of filing the chargesheet in
the base case has been written in the gang-chart (appended at page 40) and all the authorities
recorded their satisfaction in their own hand writing in a joint meeting after due discussion,
therefore, the facts of the present case are entirely different from the case of Sanni Mishra alias
Sanjayan Kumar Mishra (supra), Mohd. Arif @ Guddu (supra) and Vinod Bihari Lal
(supra), wherein it was held that the authorities will record their satisfaction in a joint meeting after
due discussion. The language/satisfaction of the authorities is as per Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021 in
the present case.

14. In another judgement Asim @ Hasim (supra), it has been held that at the time of
preparation of the chargesheet, the corresponding section 2(b) (i) to (xxv) of the Act, 1986 should
be mentioned. The relevant paragraph 9 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"9. In the present case, the impugned FIR was registered u/s 3(1) Gangster Act, without
mentioning the corresponding provision, mentioning the anti social activities, in which the accused
is involved and on the basis of which he was named as gangster. A person cannot be punished
without specifying the offence committed by him which would justify his classification as a
Gangster. "

15. In the present case chargesheet was submitted by the police under Section 2/3 Gangster
Act, 1986 and in the body of the chargesheet it has also been mentioned that the offence of the
applicant falls under the definition of Gangster Act, being part of the gang which is indulged in anti
social activities as mentioned in Section 2(b) (i) to (xxv) of the Act, therefore, the facts of Asim @
Hasim (supra) is entirely different from the facts of the present case.

16. In another judgment of Master @ Ramzan (supra), the first information report was
quashed since wrong information was mentioned in the gang-chart but in the present case, the
counsel for the applicant could not show any false/wrong information in the gang-chart.

17. The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulam Mustafa (supra) is not
related to Gangster Act rather the power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
discussed.

18. The judgment of Prabhat Patel (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present
case since it was held in the aforesaid case that gang-chart was prepared without joint meeting and
Rules 8(3), 16 and 17 of Rules, 2021 were not followed. In the present case, all the competent
authorities recorded their satisfaction in their own handwriting in a joint meeting after due
discussion. Therefore, there is no violation of any aforesaid Rule of the Rules, 2021.

19. In the case of Ambuj Parag Dubey, reported in 2022 (4) ACR 3878 the Division Bench
of this Court has considered the entire scheme of the Gangster Act and held that in a case, on the
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
materials, the competent authority is convinced and prima facie satisfied that a case for prosecution
is made out, he may approve the gang chart bypassing discussion with the police officials. But in a
case where the competent authority is not convinced or in two mind, on the material placed by the
police authorities, the competent authority may necessarily decide to call for a discussion to prima
facie satisfy himself that prosecution is warranted.. Relevant paragraphs no.27 to 38 and 41 of the
said judgement are reproduced as under:-

"27. Chapter-III of Gangster Rules lays down the principles related to Gang Chart. Rule5 mandates that Incharge of a Police Station/Station House Officer/ Inspector shall prepare a
Gang Chart (Form No. 1) mentioning the details of criminal activities of the gang. The Gang Chart
will be presented to the district head of the Police after clear recommendation of the Additional
Superintendent of Police mentioning the detailed activities in relation of all the persons of the said
gang. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that the provisions contained therein shall be complied in
respect of gang charts. The provision reads thus:

5. (1) To initiate proceedings under this Act, the concerned Incharge of Police General
Rules 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 case or even where final report has been submitted in
the absence of evidence.
2 All. Smt. Jyoti Suri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
861

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
(ICJS) portal and Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS).

28. Rule 6 provides that while preparing the Gang Chart it shall be clearly mentioned, if
the alleged act of the gang falls within the purview of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act along with
relevant provisions, further, sub-rule (2) mandates that the Investigating Officer makes an
endorsement to the effect that the accused is causing panic, alarm or terror in public, then evidence
shall be collected in this regard. In addition to the above, a list of criminal history may be attached
separately in the prescribed format. (Form No. 4)

29. Rule 10 mandates that records of base cases, would accompany the gang chart and
Rule 11 mandates that the present status of all the accused, whether they are in jail or on bail or
absconding, shall be clearly mentioned. Rule 13 mandates that while writing abstract below the
gang chart and particulars of those officials shall be specifically mentioned. Rule 13 is extracted:

13. While writing the abstract below the gang-chart 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)

30. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 15 provides that final decision as to whether to include or not to
include the name of member of a gang in the gang and gang-chart shall be at the discretion of the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate, as the case may be.

31. Rule 16 provides the manner and the recommendations to be made while forwarding
the gang chart Rule 16 reads thus:

"16. 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.
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Throughly studies 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 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
gang-chart and attached forms and I am fully satisfied that all the particulars mentioned in the
case are correct and there is a satisfactory basis for taking action under the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986. Accordingly, approved"

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

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

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

33. The expression satisfied is much narrower than ''application of mind'. The competent
authority is not to apply his mind and satisfy himself as to whether the material placed before him
would be sufficient for convicting the accused under the Gangster Act. The satisfaction is confined
within a narrow domain based on the materials placed before the competent authority, the
authorities forwarding the gang chart is satisfied that the accused should be prosecuted under the
Gangster Act. The expression satisfaction is not satisfaction on evidence but a prima facie
2 All. Smt. Jyoti Suri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
863
satisfaction based on the representations of the nodal authority and the district police that the
accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act.

34. Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority is bound to exercise its own
independent mind while forwarding the gang chart and should not be on a pre-printed rubber seal
gang chart. Rule 17 reads thus:

"17 (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."

35. Rule 18 provides that gang chart shall be sent only in the manner as given in Form
No. 1 of these rules.

36. Rule 17 and 18 would have to be read together. Gang chart has to be sent in the
prescribed Form No. 1. The endorsement to be made by each of the authorities have also been
specified in Rule 16. The rule itself prescribes and mandates a printed Form. Rule 17 merely
mandates that the competent authority while approving the gang chart should not be swayed by the
recommendation of the police authorities mechanically but should satisfy himself independently
that the grounds for prosecution is made out. The satisfaction at that stage is subjective and does
not rest upon any evidence. The competent authority has to satisfy that the materials placed with
the gang chart calls for prosecution. The stage of collecting evidence follows thereafter. The scope
of judicial review is miniscule, the accused cannot challenge the FIR without challenging the gang
chart. The question as to whether the antisocial activities of the proposed accused is that of a gang
or gangster is a matter of investigation.

37. Rule 22 clarifies and specifies that a single act/omission will also constitute an
offence under the Act and a first information report must be registered on the basis of a single case.
Rule 22(1) reads thus:

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

38. Further, sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 necessarily provides prosecution on certain class of
cases, on a single offence which includes Section 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397 of Indian Penal Code
out of the offences mentioned in sub-clause (i) or clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act.

41. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no
''discussion' by the competent authority with the police officers before approving the gang chart
would not be fatal to the prosecution of the petitioners. The expression ''discussion' has to be
followed mandatorily by the competent authority in every case does not follow from reading of the
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rule, though the rule employs the word ''shall'. The Gangster Rule no where mandates the
consequence of not following ''discussion' by the competent authority. In our opinion the rule
mandating discussion is directory. It is left to the discretion of the competent authority, having
regard to the material placed before him for approval of the gang chart. In a case, on the
materials, the competent authority is convinced and prima facie satisfied that a case for
prosecution is made out he may approve the gang chart bypassing discussion with the police
officials. But in a case where the competent authority is not convinced or in two mind, on the
material placed by the police authorities, the competent authority may necessarily decide to call for
a discussion to prima facie satisfy himself that prosecution is warranted. The FIR that follows the
approval of the gang chart cannot be faulted or quashed merely for want of discussion."

20. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P.
and 3 Others, passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15487 of 2023, decided on 04.10.2023
has followed the judgment of Ambuj Parag Dubey (supra). The relevant paragraphs no.11 to 17
are reproduced as under:-

"11. Applying the aforesaid principles there can be no two opinions that the words "the
gang chart shall not be approved within the completion of investigation of the base case" are
hardly open for any other interpretation as the words are plain and unambiguous and admits only
one meaning and should be read as it is. Once this statutory mandate is taken as such the
requirement of 'certified copy' of gang chart (or recovery memo) can safely be held or interpreted
to be only 'procedural' in nature and only mandate of Rule 10 of the Rules would be that a copy
certified by any competent person (which is being discussed in subsequent paragraphs) shall be
attached with the gang chart. Any other interpretation of Rule 5(3)(c) read with Rule 10 of the
Rules would frustrate the purpose and object of enactment of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder.

12. We, therefore, find that as the only requirement of law as per the above quoted Rule
5(3)(c) is that there should be a completion of the investigation of the base case before approval of
the gang-chart, and the same had clearly been done in the present case. Therefore, filing or nonfiling of the charge-sheet in the court concerned before preparation of the gang chart is immaterial
and that the only requirement is that the charge-sheet should be available with the concerned
authority before approval of the gang-chart.

13. In the present case of the petitioner herein Narender Kumar, at the cost of repetition,
it is highlighted that date of completion of investigation is 6.2.2023; the process of approval of the
gang chart started on 17.3.2023 and the approval of the gang-chart was given by the
Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar on 20.3.2023, hence there is no violation of Rule
5(3)(c) of the Rules.

14. Insofar as violation of Rule 10 of the Gangster Rules is concerned, submission is that
there should exist a certified copy of the charge-sheet at the time of making draft gang chart. We
find that the charge-sheet has been prepared by the Investigating Officer under his signatures and
the investigation had already been concluded before preparation of the gang chart. We are of the
opinion that there should be a copy duly certified by the Officer only, who is having control over
2 All. Smt. Jyoti Suri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
865
the document and it is no where required that it has to be a certified copy having been issued by the
court of law. Rule 10 of the Rules, 2021 nowhere says that copy of the charge-sheet has to be a
copy certified by the Court or a certified copy of the charge-sheet issued by the Court. Submission
of charge-sheet in the Court is not a prerequisite of Rule 10 of the Rules.

15. As the intention of the legislature is that the provision of Gangster Act can be
imposed after completion of the investigation, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the copy of
the charge-sheet or the recovery memo duly certified by the competent authority or the authority
having control over such document i.e. Investigating Officer are sufficient for the said purpose. In
this regard, a reference may be made to Rule 22 of the Rules, 2021, also heading whereof itself
provides that criminal history is not mandatory and sections of the Gangster Act can be imposed in
the course of investigation of any base case, falls under category of certain offence mentioned in
Rule 22 (2) of the Rules, 2021.

16. The controversy has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh decided on 26 April, 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.
569-570 of 2022 that the provisions of Gangster Act can be imposed on the basis of a solitary case.

17. In addition, the object of enacting the Gangster Act and the Rules framed thereunder
may also be taken note of, which are noted as under:

Of the Act:

"An act to make special provision for the prevention of, and for coping with, gangsters
and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

Of the Rules:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986) read with Section 21 of the
Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904) and in suppression of all
Government Orders and Notifications made under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986), except as respect things done or omitted
to be done before such suppression, the Governor is pleased to make the following rules with a
view to provide for a speedy and transparent procedure to punish gangsters, to establish an
efficient recovery system in respect of property of gangsters and incidental benefits acquired by
them through crimes and acts related therewith."

21. Even, in the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Anil Mishra (supra), the
provisions of the Gangster Act have been again discussed and it was noted that there was no
violation of any provisions of the Gangster Act and the Gangster Rules. So far as the violation of
Rule 10 of the Rules, 2021 is concerned, submission is that there should exist a certified copy of
the chargesheet at the time of making draft of gang chart. I find that the chargesheet has been
prepared by the Investigating Officer under his signature in the base case on 20.09.2024 and the
investigation had already been completed before preparation of the gang chart on 21.09.2024.
Therefore, the gang-chart was prepared as per Rule 5(3) (c) of the Rules, 2021.
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. Therefore, there should have been a copy duly certified by the officer only who is having
control over the document and it is nowhere required that it has to be a certified copy having been
issued by the court of law. Rule 10 of Rules, 2021 nowhere says that copy of the chargesheet has to
be a copy certified by the court.Therefore, there is no violation of Rules 10(1) of the Rules, 2021.
Submission of charge-sheet in the court is not a prerequisite of Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 2021.

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

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

24. Significantly, Rule 60 finds place in Chapter-8 of the Rules with a heading-General Rules of Trial. The
Rule clearly reflects that certification of a charge-sheet is associated with the police officer, however, it clearly and
unambiguously relates to trial of cases under the Act and the role of the officer has been assigned only to prove the
certified copy of the charge sheet during the course of trial itself.