# Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 767
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vinod-bihari-lal-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-38731
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the
applications filed u/s.482 Cr.PC by appellant for quashing the
proceedings arising out of FIR u/s.2 and 3 of U.P. Gangsters &
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the non-bailable
warrants issued against the appellant respectively.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 - s.2(b) - Gang - Gang chart - FIR-Subject FIR
alleging that the appellant, alongwith one DD, constituted an
organized gang in terms of s.2(b) with the appellant acting as
its leader, and that the gang is adept at committing economic
offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the
kind for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for themselves
by forging documents - Application by the appellant u/s.482
CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of the trial arising out
of FIR u/ss.2 and 3 of the 1986 Act - Another application filed
by the appellant u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of non-bailable
warrants issued against the appellant passed by the Special
Judge in the impugned proceedings - High Court rejected the
applications - Challenge to:
Held: Chargesheet filed on completion of the investigation arrays
only two accused, one of whom is the appellant, is devoid of any
annexures or enclosures that might substantiate the allegations
or, indicate that a genuine, impartial and transparent investigation
was carried out - Statements attributed to the complainant and
the witnesses mere verbatim reproductions of the subject FIR and
the base FIRs - Contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2449
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency - Subject
FIR was registered after approximately a year from the date of
the registration of the first base FIR - Allegations in the base
FIR do not, even in the remotest possibility, appear to have been
committed with the object of disturbing public order or to gain any
undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself
or any other person - In the impugned proceedings, the appellant
and one DD have been arraigned as gangsters, whereas in the
three base FIRs, DD does not figure at all as an accused - In such
circumstances, the gang-chart could not have listed the said three
FIRs, as the base FIRs, against the appellant and DD together - All
this raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the investigating
agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken - In view of
the vague and general allegations levelled in the subject FIR,
requiring the appellant to stand trial would amount to abuse of the
process of law - Non-interference in such a case would result in
miscarriage of justice - High Court committed an egregious error
in declining to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings in
pursuance thereof qua the appellant - Gang-chart was approved by
the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a preprinted gang-chart, an act that reflects complete non-application
of mind and constitutes a violation of rr.16 and 17 of the Rules of
2021 - Recommending, forwarding, and approving authority not
mere rubber-stamping entities - Competent authority forwarded
and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been
prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021 - Registration
of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural
safeguards - Materials garnered during the investigation only
ignite conjectures and surmises, and do not make out a prima
facie case to be proceeded against the appellant under the Act of
1986 - Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant
would result in undue harassment when there is no material
against him - Impugned judgment and order whereby the High
Court rejected the applications u/s.482 CrPC, by the appellant
for quashing of the impugned proceedings; and for quashing of
non-bailable warrants, set aside - Thus, the proceed

## Text

_Characters 0–39,815 of 81,084. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39815 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2448 : 2025 INSC 767
Vinod Bihari Lal
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 777-778 of 2025)
23 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the
applications filed u/s.482 Cr.PC by appellant for quashing the
proceedings arising out of FIR u/s.2 and 3 of U.P. Gangsters &
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the non-bailable
warrants issued against the appellant respectively.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 - s.2(b) - Gang - Gang chart - FIR-Subject FIR
alleging that the appellant, alongwith one DD, constituted an
organized gang in terms of s.2(b) with the appellant acting as
its leader, and that the gang is adept at committing economic
offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the
kind for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for themselves
by forging documents - Application by the appellant u/s.482
CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of the trial arising out
of FIR u/ss.2 and 3 of the 1986 Act - Another application filed
by the appellant u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of non-bailable
warrants issued against the appellant passed by the Special
Judge in the impugned proceedings - High Court rejected the
applications - Challenge to:
Held: Chargesheet filed on completion of the investigation arrays
only two accused, one of whom is the appellant, is devoid of any
annexures or enclosures that might substantiate the allegations
or, indicate that a genuine, impartial and transparent investigation
was carried out - Statements attributed to the complainant and
the witnesses mere verbatim reproductions of the subject FIR and
the base FIRs - Contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2449
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency - Subject
FIR was registered after approximately a year from the date of
the registration of the first base FIR - Allegations in the base
FIR do not, even in the remotest possibility, appear to have been
committed with the object of disturbing public order or to gain any
undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself
or any other person - In the impugned proceedings, the appellant
and one DD have been arraigned as gangsters, whereas in the
three base FIRs, DD does not figure at all as an accused - In such
circumstances, the gang-chart could not have listed the said three
FIRs, as the base FIRs, against the appellant and DD together - All
this raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the investigating
agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken - In view of
the vague and general allegations levelled in the subject FIR,
requiring the appellant to stand trial would amount to abuse of the
process of law - Non-interference in such a case would result in
miscarriage of justice - High Court committed an egregious error
in declining to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings in
pursuance thereof qua the appellant - Gang-chart was approved by
the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a preprinted gang-chart, an act that reflects complete non-application
of mind and constitutes a violation of rr.16 and 17 of the Rules of
2021 - Recommending, forwarding, and approving authority not
mere rubber-stamping entities - Competent authority forwarded
and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been
prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021 - Registration
of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural
safeguards - Materials garnered during the investigation only
ignite conjectures and surmises, and do not make out a prima
facie case to be proceeded against the appellant under the Act of
1986 - Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant
would result in undue harassment when there is no material
against him - Impugned judgment and order whereby the High
Court rejected the applications u/s.482 CrPC, by the appellant
for quashing of the impugned proceedings; and for quashing of
non-bailable warrants, set aside - Thus, the proceedings arising
from the subject FIR quashed. [Paras 29-66]
Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - rr.5, 16, 17 - Preparation of Gang Chart, in
conformity with the Rules, 2021 - Explained. [Paras 44-49, 56, 57]
2450
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 - s.2(b) - Definition of 'Gang':
Held: Definition of the term "gang" not attracted by mere association
with a miscreant group - For such a group to metamorphize into
a gang, either singly or collectively, it must engage in anti-social
activities enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of s.2(b), and must be
committed with the object of disturbing public order, or securing
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for
himself or any other person - In essence, a group of persons falls
within the ambit of s.2(b) only when the requirements set forth in
r.3 are satisfied. [Paras 21, 25]
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 - Guidelines for the purpose of invoking provisions
of the Act of 1986 - Reiterated. [Paras 63, 64]
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992)
Supp. 1 SCC 335; Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Crl. Appeal No. 2589/2025 - relied on.
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR 388 : 1960 SCC OnLine
SC 21; Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. [2023] 11 SCR 313 : 2023
SCC OnLine SC 951; Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana & Ors.
[2024] 3 SCR 1181 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367; Ashok Kumar
Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 SCC OnLine All 203; Sukarmpal v.
State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 5848; Sanni Mishra v. State
of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975 - referred to.
Sharp v. Wakefield, 1891 A.C. 173 - referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.
List of Keywords
Gangster; Gang chart; Quashing of proceedings; Abuse of process
of law; Guidelines for invoking provisions of the Act of 1986;
Approval of the gang-chart; Preparation of Gang Chart; Economic
offences involving fraud and cheating; Personal, material, and
pecuniary gain; Anti social activities; Definition of Gang.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2451
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
777-778 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 36921 of 2019 and A482
No. 10817 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sidhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Ms. Jemtiben AO.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mrs. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Upadhyay, Amit Singh,
Aman Pathak, Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Shashank Pachauri.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts:-
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX ..................................................................
2
B.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT .........................................................
6
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT .............
7
D.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS .......
9
E.
ANALYSIS ...............................................................................
10
a.
Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of
Act of 1986 .....................................................................
11
i.
Definition of "gang" under the Act of 1986 .............
11
ii.
Principles of quashing couched in Section 482 of
the CrPC ................................................................. 21
b.
Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of
Rules of 2021 ................................................................. 24
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
2452
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
i.
Application of mind and satisfaction of competent
authorities ...............................................................
29
F.
CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 37
1.
The Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2025 arises out of the judgment
(hereinafter referred to as "impugned judgment"), passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.04.2023 in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 36921 of 2019, whereby the High Court
rejected the application filed by the appellant herein under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CrPC")
for quashing of the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of
2019 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned proceedings"), arising
out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "subject FIR"),
under Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
& Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act of
1986") lodged at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
2.
Whereas, the Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 2025 arises out of the
order (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order"), passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 10817 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023, whereby the High
Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section
482 of the CrPC for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued
against the appellant vide orders dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023
respectively, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad
in the impugned proceedings.
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3.
The impugned proceedings arise out of the subject FIR, which came
to be registered against the appellant on 28.07.2018 at the instance
of the Station House Officer (SHO), P.S. Naini. The FIR alleges that
upon visits to certain areas, it was ascertained that the appellant,
alongwith one David Dutta, constitute an organized gang in terms of
Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, with the appellant acting as its leader.
It is further alleged that the gang is adept at committing economic
offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the kind,
described in Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC respectively
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2453
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for themselves by forging
documents. On the basis of the following base FIRs, the subject FIR
was registered:
Sr.
No.
Base FIRs
Allegations qua the
appellant
Status of
proceedings
1.
FIR No.
476/2017
registered on
09.08.2017 u/
Ss. 406, 419,
420, 467, 468,
471, 120B of
the IPC
The appellant with other
accused persons forged
forms and documents,
siphoned off approximately
Rs. 13 crores which was
the fee submitted by
students.
This Court quashed
the FIR vide order
dated 24.01.2024
in Crl. Appeal No.
385/2024.
2.
FIR No.
170/2017
registered on
21.08.2017 u/
Ss. 406, 419,
420, 467, 468,
471, 120B of
the IPC
The accused persons are
running Ewing Christian
Public School without any
recognition; the building
of the said school is not in
accordance with building
norms and is being
run without permission
from the Allahabad
Development Authority
and the concerned
Contracted Power
Institutions. The accused
persons have hatched
a conspiracy and forged
signatures on forms and
documents. They have
misappropriated Rs. 6
crores out of the fee
deposited by the students.
Date of Incident: Not
mentioned.
The High Court
stayed the further
proceedings
vide order dated
04.10.2018 in
Application u/S. 482
No. 34944/2018.
3.
FIR No.
726/2017
registered on
25.08.2017 u/
Ss. 147, 148,
149, 323, 504,
506, 307 of the
IPC
On 25.08.2017, the
appellant exhorted
the assailants to fire a
gunshot on the informant.
Date of Incident:
25.08.2017
The High Court
ordered no coercive
action to be taken
against the appellant
vide order dated
13.11.2018 in
Application u/S. 482
No. 40320/2018.
2454
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.
FIR No.
761/2017
registered on
17.12.2017 u/
Ss. 419, 406,
420, 467, 468,
471 of the IPC
The appellant in collusion
with another accused
person appointed one
Sumita Parmar as the
Secretary of the Diocesan
Education Board. The
accused persons have
forged documents to
appoint the office bearers
and signatories to the
Board and embezzled
crores of rupees from the
Board.
Date of Incident:
01.11.2017
The High Court
stayed further
proceedings
vide order dated
07.12.2018 in
Application u/S. No.
44250/2018.
5.
FIR No.
244/2017
registered on
17.12.2017 u/
Ss. 417, 419,
420, 467, 468,
471, 504, 506
of the IPC
The appellant is a member
of organized gang who
forges documents with the
intention of encroaching
upon vacant lands.
The accused persons
have forged the order
dated 10.04.1974 and
24.04.1974 in Suit No.
170/1974, and used fake
seal of court.
Date of Incident:
20.08.2017
The High Court
did not stay the
proceedings as the
appellant was on bail
at the relevant time.
4.
The gang-chart qua the appellant was purportedly approved by
the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 28.07.2018. It also reflects
the signatures of Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated
27.07.2018 alongwith the recommendation of the Superintendent of
Police, Trans Yamuna and the Circle Officer, Karchhana.
5.
By order dated 28.02.2023, the non-bailable warrants of arrest were
issued against the appellant by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)
in the impugned proceedings, and by order dated 14.03.2023, the
application seeking recall of the said non-bailable warrants came
to be rejected.
6.
The appellant by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 36921 of 2019 assailed the impugned proceedings arising out
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2455
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
of the subject FIR; and by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 10817/2023 assailed the impugned orders and prayed for their
quashing before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
B.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
7.
The High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 36921/2019,
rejected the application preferred by the application on following
three grounds:
i.
First, the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant
that in order for a group of individuals to constitute a "gang",
'violence' or 'disturbance of public order', whether acting
singly or collectively for pecuniary gain, are the two essential
ingredients for constituting a gang. The Court held that violence
or disturbance of public order is not sine qua non for constituting
a "gang" under Section 2(b) of the Act. According to the High
Court, Section 2(b) contemplates a group of persons, acting
either singly or collectively, who employ violence, or threat,
or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or engage
in conduct falling within the expression "or otherwise" with
the object of either (i) disturbing public order, or (ii) obtaining
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage
for themselves or for others, and who indulge in anti-social
activities as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxii) of Section 2(b)
of the Act of 1986.
ii.
As the natural corollary to the aforesaid, the twin objectives
of disturbing public order or gaining undue advantage may be
resorted to through any of the means enumerated in Section
2(b), or by any other way. The use of the term 'otherwise'
indicates that the group may act in any manner to achieve these
objectives, even in the absence of violence, coercion, or other
overtly expressed means in the provision. Upon perusing the
base FIRs, the High Court held that, in any event, the appellant
could not have contended that there was no allegation of
violence, or threat of violence against him.
iii.
Secondly, the High Court rejected the submission of the
appellant that owing to the interim orders passed by the High
Court and this Court in the base FIRs, it could no longer be
2456
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
said the appellant was being prosecuted under the provisions
of the Act of 1986. The Court held that an order staying the
proceedings or restraining the police from taking any coercive
steps neither extinguishes nor exonerates the alleged offence;
it merely keeps the proceedings in abeyance.
iv.
Thirdly, on the submission advanced by the appellant that there
was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules 5(2),
5(3), 16 and 17 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (for short,
"the Rules of 2021"), the High Court held that the law does
not mandate the use of any specific words to demonstrate
independent application of mind by the recommending and
approving authorities. It further maintained that the gang-chart
reflected due and independent application of mind by all the
authorities, and any inconsistency in the manner of approval
of the gang-chart would be inconsequential once the case has
progressed to the stage of trial.
8.
The High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10817/2023,
rejected the application preferred by the appellant, holding that the
challenge pertained to procedural steps in aid of the trial rather than
to any substantive order, and that a mere challenge to procedure,
without seeking any substantive relief, could not be entertained.
9.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant is before us with the
present appeal.
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
10. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant, submitted that the four base FIRs, namely FIR No.
170/2017, FIR No. 726/2017, FIR No. 761/2017 and FIR No. 244/2017
respectively, do not attribute any specific overt act to the appellant
except for the omnibus allegation that he, in collusion with the other
accused persons, forged documents for the purpose of grabbing land
and embezzled money from the fees deposited by the students. He
further submitted that there is no allegation, even remotely, of the
use of force and violence in the said FIRs. According to him, the
allegations do not disclose that the primary objective behind the
commission of the alleged offences was to disturb the public order.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2457
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
11. Mr. Dave further submitted that a plain reading of Section 2(b) of
the Act of 1986 reveals that a group of persons can be regarded
a "gang" only if they engage in any anti-social activities through
violence, or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion
with the object of disturbing public order and gaining any undue
temporal, or pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself.
He submitted that from the bare reading of Rule 3 of the Rules of
2021, it is clear that the ingredients of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
are necessary concomitants in the FIR under the Act of 1986. In the
present case, the four base FIRs do not reveal any disturbance to
public order or violence or threat.
12. He contended that the appellant is an accused in the abovementioned
FIRs alongwith other accused persons. The appellant is alleged to
be running a "gang" with one David Dutta, who is also named as an
accused in the base FIR No. 170/2017. However, the other accused
persons named in the remaining FIRs have not been arrayed as
accused in the subject FIR, which has been registered under the Act
of 1986. In other words, there is no plausible explanation as to why
those other accused persons were not included in the subject FIR,
if the same is based on the allegations contained in the base FIR.
13. Mr. Dave placed strong reliance on the decision of the High Court of
Allahabad in Nafees & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported as
2011 SCC OnLine All 852, to contend that before the provisions the
Act of 1986 are invoked, the authorities record satisfaction that there
exists a reasonable and proximate connection between the alleged
occurrence and the activity of the person sought to be apprehended.
He submitted that such activities must be directed towards securing
undue temporal, physical, economic or other advantages.
14. In the last, Mr. Dave questioned the conduct of the informant/
complainant in the respective FIRs, as well as the veracity of the
FIRs themselves, pointing out that base FIR No. 170/2017 does not
mention the date of the alleged incident and that the delay in lodging
all the base FIRs remain unexplained. He highlighted the mala fides
on the part of the complainant in lodging FIR No. 170/2017 and FIR
No. 761/2017 respectively. In support of this submission, he referred
to the observations of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 2024,
wherein it was noted that the non-appearance of the complainant
2458
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
reflected a prejudicial attitude and an inability to substantiate the
allegations made against the appellant.
D.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
15. Ms. Garima Prashad, the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted
that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to
have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned
judgment. She submitted that the subject FIR contains allegations
that the appellant resorted to public threats and coercion, including
physical violence, which squarely falls within the ambit of anti-social
activities as defined Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986.
16. The learned A.A.G. further submitted that a bare perusal of the base
FIRs reveal commission of cognizable offence by the appellant. In
addition to these FIRs, she pointed out that there are thirty-two criminal
cases pending against the appellant, in which chargesheets have
been filed, disclosing serious allegations against him. In support of
her submission, Ms. Prashad, referred to the statement of informants
and witnesses in the subject FIR and the base FIRs. In the last,
the A.A.G submitted that the impugned proceedings do not warrant
quashing, as a prima facie case is made out against the appellant.
E.
ANALYSIS
17. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side,
we must try to understand the basic principles governing quashing of
complaints and criminal proceedings. This Court, in various judgments,
more particularly in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported as
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down parameters for quashing of
an FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereof. It is through the lens
of these parameters that we shall examine whether the impugned
proceedings warrant quashing, or whether the impugned judgment
is correct in declining to do so. The parameters are:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2459
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
a.
Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Act of
1986
i.
Definition of "gang" under the Act of 1986
2460
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
18. At this stage, we shall refer to the definition of "gang" as set out in
Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986. The definition reads thus:
"(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, namely-[...]"
19. Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 should be read alongside Rule 3 of
the Rules of 2021, which states as follows:
"3. Conditions of criminal liability.- (1) The offences
mentioned in sub sections (i) to (xxv) of clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Act shall be punishable under the Act
only if they are:-
(a) committed for disturbing public order; or
(b) committed by causing violence or threat or display
of violence, or by intimidation, or coercion or otherwise,
either singly or collectively, for the purpose of obtaining
any unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary or other
advantage to himself or to any other person."
20. The definition of "gang" under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986
comprises the following essentials;
i.
A group of persons i.e., there can be no gang of one person;
ii.
The group of persons, acting either individually or collectively,
indulges in anti-social activities as enumerated in clauses (i)
to (xxv) of Section 2(b);
iii.
Indulgence in such anti-social activities is by means of violence,
or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or
otherwise;
iv.
Use of such means is with the object of disturbing public order,
or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage for himself or any other person.
21. It is apparent that the definition of the term "gang" is not attracted
by mere association with a miscreant group. For such a group to
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2461
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
metamorphize into a gang, it must engage in anti-social activities
enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), and these must
be committed for the object mentioned thereunder. In essence, a
group of persons falls within the ambit of Section 2(b) only when
the requirements set forth in Rule 3 are satisfied.
22. This Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported
as (2022) 19 SCC 57, held that an accused can be termed as
"gangster" when he as a member of a gang, has indulged in any of
the enumerated anti-social activities, whether by means expressly
stated 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. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"25. A group of persons may act collectively or any one
of the members of the group may also act singly, with the
object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social
activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act,
who can be termed as "gangster". A member of a "gang"
acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a
member of the "gang" and comes within the definition of
"gang", provided he/she is found to have indulged in any
of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of
the Gangsters Act.
xxx
27. 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/chargesheet, 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
2462
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
23. A Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar Dixit v.
State of U.P., reported as 1987 SCC OnLine All 203, while deciding
on the constitutional validity of the Act of 1986 noted that the term
"gang" means a group of persons who by violence, or threat, or
show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise indulge
in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order or
gaining any undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage
for himself. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"12. Section 2(b) defines the term "Gang" to mean a group
of persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence or
intimidation or coercion etc. indulge in anti-social activities
with the object of disturbing public order of gaining any
undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage
for himself. S. 2(b) read as a whole necessarily brings in
the concept of violence or intimidation or coercion etc.
which is resorted to for gaining material advantage. Then
we have cl. (c) of S. 2 which defines the word "Gangster".
It means a member or leader or organiser of a group
which indulges in the kind of activities set out under the
various sub-clauses of cl. (b) of S. 2, by use of violence
or threat or show of violence or intimidation etc. S. 3(i)
lays down the penalty for being the member or leader or
organiser of a group which engages or indulges in the
kind of unsocial activities enumerated under S. 2(b) by
use of violence etc."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. A more lucid exposition of the essential requirements was provided in
the recent decision of Sukarmpal v. State of U.P., reported in 2024
SCC OnLine All 5848. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereinbelow:
"11. From the definition of gang under Section 2(b) of the
Gangster Act, it is clear that merely becoming a member of
a gang will not be punishable unless the gang falls within
the purview of Section 2(b) of Gangster Act and for the
punishment of the member or organizer or leader of a gang
under the Gangster Act, conditions mentioned in Rule 3
must be fulfilled, which prescribes that offence mentioned in
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2463
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act
must be committed for disturbing public order or committed
by causing violence or threat or coercion or otherwise for
the purpose of obtaining unfair trustworthy, pecuniary,
economic, material or other advantage. Therefore, merely
because a person has committed any offence mentioned
in Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of sub-section (b) of Section 2
of the Gangster Act will not itself come within the purview
of the Gangster Act unless he is member of a gang falling
under Section 2(b) of Gangster Act.
12. Even the Rule 4(2) of the Gangster Rules itself provides
that, if a member of a gang has committed any offence
which comes within the purview of the Act along with any
other members then he will be presumed to be a gang.
Therefore, punishing a person under the Gangster Act
basic condition to be a member of a gang under Section
2(b) of the Gangster Act must be satisfied.
13. Rule 6 of the Gangster Rules also provides that at the
time of preparation of gang chart, it must be mentioned
that act of gang falls within the purview of Section 2(b) of
the Gangster Act. Therefore, it is clear that for bringing
an offence within the purview of Gangster Act, it must be
committed by a member of a gang for the object mentioned
in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act by doing the activities
mentioned in Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Gangster Act. Therefore, if any offence
is committed whether the same falls within the category
of Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the Gangster
Act or not, that will not come within the purview of the
Gangster Act unless the same is done with the object
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
25. From the above exposition of law, a group of persons may be said
to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively,
indulge in any of the anti-social activity enumerated in clauses (i)
to (xvv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise,
and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or
2464
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
for himself or any other person.
26. Although the present matter presently before us pertains solely to the
subject FIR in question, yet it must be noted that an FIR registered
under the Act of 1986 cannot be sustained in the absence of a base
case/FIR. Accordingly, it becomes imperative to undertake a prima
facie examination of the allegations underlying the registration of the
subject FIR and the consequent preparation of gang-chart.
27. We deem it necessary to reiterate that our observations concerning
the base FIRs are confined exclusively to the purpose of assessing
the subject FIR and the impugned proceedings before us. The trial
arising from the base FIRs shall, in no manner whatsoever, be
prejudiced or influenced by the present discussion.
28. In the subject FIR, it is alleged that upon visits to certain areas, it
surfaced that the appellant, alongwith one David Dutta, constitute an
organized gang, with the appellant acting as its leader. It is further
alleged that the gang is adept at committing economic offences involving
fraud and cheating, being offences of the kind, described in Chapters
XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC for personal, material, and pecuniary
gain for themselves by forging documents. The subject FIR reads thus:
"To, The Head Writer, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad.
Today, on 28.07.2018, I (SHO) Pradeep Kumar Mishra
along with accompanying Constable Narain Singh,
Constable Ramsharan Verma and driver Mayapati Singh
returned through government vehicle from visit area
and investigation From visit area, it has ascertained that
Vinod B. Lal son of Mr. Bihari Lal resident of Agriculture
Campus, Naini, Allahabad, (2) David Dutta son of Mr. A.B.
Dutta resident of 86, Meurabad, P.S. Cantt., Allahabad
are having an organized gang and its gang leader is
Vinod B. Lal who is a habitual criminal of economic
offences by committing fraud and cheating and commits
offence mentioned in Chapter 16, 17 and 22 for personal,
physical and financial benefits by forging documents to
commit economic offence to get money. Due to their fear
and terror, local people have no courage to get lodged
complaint against them. On account of running Christian
Public School at Katzoo Road, Shahganj by them without
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
2465
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
obtaining permission from Development Authority, Mr.
Diwakar Nath Tripathi, Vide President, Bhartiya Janta Party,
Allahabad (Kashi Region) had got registered Case Crime
No.170/2017 under section 406/419/20/467/468/471120B IPC P.S. Shahganj on 21.07.2017, investigation of
which has conducted by SI Mohd. Zameer who after
collecting the evidence has forwarded charge-sheet on
12.01.2018. On 09.08.2017, upon information of Mr.
Diwakar Tripathi, Case Crime No.476/2017 under sections
406/419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC has registered, which
was investigated by Inspector Prakash Singh who in regard
to evidence has forwarded Charge-Sheet No. 154 /2017
dated 04.10.2017. On 25.08.2017, on the information of
Shaheem Siddiqui son of Late Mr. Nashimuddin Siddiqui
resident of 7-D, Mahewa, Naini, in P.S. Naini Case Crime
No.726/2017 under sections 147/148/323/504/506/307 IPC
was registered against Ram Kishan etc., investigation of
which was conducted by SI Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh
who in regard to the evidence, forwarded Charge-Sheet
bearing No.65/2018 dated 01.03.2018 against the abovenamed accused Vinod B. Lal before the Hon'ble Court.
On 17.12.2017, on written complaint of Mr. Diwakar Nath
Tripathi, in P.S. Civil Lines, Case Crime No.761/2017 under
sections 419 /420/406/467/468/471/120-B against P.C.
Singh and 7 others was registered and its investigation
was conducted by SI Mr. Bhunesh Kumar Singh who
in regard to the evidence has forwarded Charge-Sheet
No.59/2018 dated 09.04.2018 against accused Vinod B.
Lal and 6 others. On 17.12.2017, on the basis of written
information of Mr. Rudra Narain Pathak son of Mr. Chandra
Shekhar Pathak resident of Rampur, P.S. Rampur, District
Varanasi, Case Crime No.244/2017 under sections
147/419/420/467/468/471/504/506 IPC was registered
against Arun Pal and 11 others, investigation of which was
conducted by Si B. Ramraj Singh who in sequence to the
evidence has submitted Charge-Sheet No.63/2018 dated
01.04.2018 against the accused R.K. Gaban and Vinod
B. Lal was submitted. Likewise, accused Vinod B. Lal and
David Dutta have committed offence under sections 2/3
of Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, 1986. Approval for gang
chart of the aforesaid accused has obtained from District
2466
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Magistrate, Allahabad. Send SR after registration of charge
and informed higher officials through RT. Sd\- (illegible)
English (Pradeep Kumar Mishra) Pradeep Kumar Mishra,
In-Charge-cum-Inspector, Naini Allahabad Sd Constable
Narain Singh, Sd Constable Ram Sharan Verma. NOTE: I,
HCP Ramdev Shukla certify that copy of complaint has
got typed in computer verbatim."
29. The chargesheet filed on completion of the investigation arrays only
two accused, one of whom is the appellant, and states, in so many
words, that based on the investigation conducted, reading of the
statement of complainant and other witnesses, and the perusal of the
gang-chart alongwith the FIRs mentioned therein, the offence under
Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively of the Act of 1986 stands "proved"
against the accused persons. The chargesheet is devoid of any
annexures or enclosures that might substantiate the allegations or,
at the very least, indicate that a genuine, impartial and transparent
investigation was carried out. The statements attributed to the
complainant and the witnesses are mere verbatim reproductions of
the subject FIR and the base FIRs. The chargesheet states thus:
"Sir, on the basis of written complaint of the Complainant
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, In-Charge/Inspector, Naini
and approved gang chart, charge has registered on
28.07.2018. In compliance of direction of Area Officer,
investigation of the offence has commenced by SHO Mr.
Onkar Shukla, P.S. Dhupur. After transfer of the case of
the Complainant, on 17.11.2018, investigation has handed
over to In-Charge/Inspector Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh.
Subsequent to arrival, after handing over the investigation
to me, I (In-Charge/ Inspector) has conducted it.