Rajendra Tyagi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 NO.- 6547 of 2025
Rajendra Tyagi And 2
Others
…..Applicants(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and
Another
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ronak Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
In Chamber
AFR
Reserved on: 27.02.2026
Delivered on: 03.06.2026
HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants,
Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri
Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent, and
perused the material available on record.
I- BACKGROUND, HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS, AND
ANALYSIS OF ORDERS:
(A) Genesis of the Case and Initial Orders
2. In brief, the prosecution's case is that Rajendra Tyagi, son of
Siyanand, presently residing at of House No. A-30E, Nandgram, Police
Station Nandgram, Ghaziabad, and permanent resident of Village

2
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
Kakanda, Police Station Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, is the leader of an
organized gang, of which his son Deepak Tyagi is also a member. Both,
acting together for their financial, material, and personal gains, are alleged
to have committed acts of fraud worth crores of rupees, forgery, and
criminal intimidation in the name of providing plots/land in the districts
of Ghaziabad and Jalaun. The offences committed by this gang fall under
Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further alleged that no
member of the public has the courage to testify or file a complaint against
this gang and that their free movement is not in the interest of the general
public. The gang leader and gang members are stated to be not physically
disabled. The crimes recorded in the gang chart, comprising previously
committed anti-social activities by the gang leader and gang members, fall
within the definition of Section 2(Kha)(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the
Act of 1986’), and it is accordingly submitted that in order to control the
criminal activities of gang leader Rajendra Tyagi and the members of his
gang, it is necessary to take action under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1986.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, FIR No. 0101 of 2023 was
registered on 12.02.2023 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of 1986, at
Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, against (i) Rajendra Tyagi,
(ii) Deepak Tyagi, and (iii) Lalita Tyagi, the applicants herein. Applicant
No. 1 has been shown as the gang leader, applicant no. 2 is the son of
applicant no. 1 and has been shown as a gang member, and applicant No.
3 is the daughter-in-law of applicant no. 1, a homemaker, who has also
been shown as a gang member. Aggrieved by the registration of the said
FIR, the applicants have filed the present application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the invocation of
the provisions of the Act of 1986 against them.
4. The case was initially listed on 22.02.2025, when the learned
counsel for the applicants raised the specific issue of alleged misuse of
police powers, contending that the gang chart pertaining to the applicants
was approved by the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, in
contravention of Rule 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social

3
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).
The primary grievance was that no joint meeting had been held between
the Commissioner of Police and the District Magistrate before according
such approval, and that the police authorities proceeded against the
applicants without the requisite subjective satisfaction being arrived at in
the manner prescribed by law, and procedure established by law. The
applicants placed reliance upon Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and
1
Others .
5. It is further contended that applicant nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on
13.02.2023, the very next day after registration of the FIR, and applicant
no. 3 was arrested on 14.02.2023, the second day after registration of the
FIR. The applicant no. 3 was granted bail on 03.05.2023 and was
subsequently released on 06.05.2023, whereas applicant nos. 1 and 2 were
granted bail on 31.05.2023 and were subsequently released on
03.06.2023.
6. It is also contended that the disputes underlying the present case
are essentially civil in nature. There existed a pre-existing civil dispute
between applicant nos. 1 and 2 and the complainants of both the base case
FIRs, and a Memorandum of Undertaking had also been executed between
applicant no. 2 and the complainant, as there were commercial
transactions between the parties. It is submitted that there is no material
on record which could substantiate that the applicants are habitual
criminals so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 2(b) and (c) of the
Act of 1986, and that neither are the applicants running a gang nor are
they gangsters. It is accordingly submitted that the essential ingredients of
Section 2(b) and (c) of the Act of 1986 are not satisfied in respect of the
applicants.
7. So far as applicant no. 3 is concerned, she is a homemaker and the
daughter-in-law of applicant no. 1. There is no allegation against her in
either of the charge sheets filed in the base cases, and yet she was
1
2025 SCC OnLine All. 3026

4
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
compelled to remain in judicial custody for approximately 80 days before
release.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and the
learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court considered it
appropriate to give a detailed hearing to the issues raised by the learned
counsel for the applicants, as well as other connected issues. Accordingly,
this Court passed a series of orders from time to time, a brief description
of which is recapitulated hereunder for ready reference.
9. By order dated 03.03.2025, this Court examined the notification
dated 19.01.2024 placed on record by the learned A.G.A. and found that
it nowhere stated that in Commissionerate districts, there was no
requirement for the District Magistrate to participate in a joint meeting
with the Commissioner of Police for the purpose of approving the gang
chart in compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules. The Court observed
that in all districts other than those notified as Commissionerates, the gang
charts are being approved in a joint meeting between the District
Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, whereas in the
Commissionerate system, the approval is being accorded solely by the
Commissioner of Police. This practice was found, prima facie, to
contravene Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules, as well as prior notifications issued
by the State Government from time to time. Accordingly, the Additional
Chief Secretary (Home), Lucknow, was directed to file a personal affidavit
addressing four specific questions: (i) the relevance and significance of
the District Magistrate's participation in the joint meeting in non-
Commissionerate districts; (ii) the legal basis for waiving the District
Magistrate's participation in Commissionerate districts; (iii) whether the
objectives of the Act of 1986 would be effectively achieved by such
waiver; and (iv) whether any government notification empowering the
Commissioner of Police to approve the gang chart independently or in a
joint meeting with subordinate officers has been issued. Simultaneously,
the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, was also directed to file a
personal affidavit disclosing the basis for approving the gang chart
without a joint meeting with the District Magistrate, the details of the joint

5
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
meeting held, the material available before the approving authority, and
the methodology employed to quantify the alleged earnings of the gang.
10. By order dated 11.03.2025, after taking on record the personal
affidavits of the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Commissioner of
Police, Ghaziabad, the Court heard arguments and examined the
government's reliance on the notification dated 26.11.2022 and Section
20(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court raised specific queries regarding the
rationale for excluding the District Magistrate from the joint meeting in
Commissionerate areas while mandating such inclusion in non-
Commissionerate districts, and also examined the basis for including the
District Magistrate's name in Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules. The Government
Advocate sought time to obtain instructions, which was granted, and the
matter was adjourned for further arguments.
11. By order dated 12.11.2025, this Court heard the Additional
Advocate General at length, who submitted that in the Commissionerate
system, the gang chart is forwarded by the concerned Assistant
Commissioner of Police (A.C.P.) and sanction therefor is accorded by the
Commissioner of Police in a joint meeting with the concerned Deputy
Commissioner of Police (D.C.P.). This procedure was stated to be founded
on the Government notification dated 26.11.2022, whereby the Governor,
in exercise of powers under Section 20(1) of the Cr.P.C., appointed all
Assistant Commissioners of Police, Additional Deputy Commissioners of
Police, Additional Commissioners of Police, Joint Commissioners of
Police, and Commissioners of Police of the metropolitan areas of Agra,
Ghaziabad, and Prayagraj as Executive Magistrates. Further, in exercise
of powers under Section 20(2) of the Cr.P.C., the Governor appointed all
Additional Commissioners of Police, Joint Commissioners of Police, and
Commissioners of Police of the said metropolitan areas as Additional
District Magistrates and conferred upon them all powers of the District
Magistrate with respect to their respective jurisdictions. The U.P.
Gangsters Act,1986 was noted to be listed at Serial No. 14 of paragraph 3
of the said notification. Notwithstanding this, the learned Additional

6
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
Advocate General sought further time to obtain instructions on the issues
highlighted in the order dated 11.03.2025 (supra).
II- DIRECTION ISSUED BY ORDER DATED 27.11.2025:
12. Detailed Analysis of the order dated 27.11.2025 is of significant
importance and constitutes the most substantive order in the course of
these proceedings. It merits detailed examination for the following
reasons:
(A) Examination of the Instructions filed by the Home Department
13. In compliance with the direction contained in the order dated
12.11.2025, the learned Additional Advocate General produced
instructions dated 26.11.2025, which were taken on record. Upon
examining these instructions, this Court found the justification offered by
the Home Department to be largely theoretical and not founded upon
empirical data. The Home Department sought to justify the exclusion of
the District Magistrate from the mandatory requirement of the joint
meeting under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules, by placing reliance on Sections
107, 117, 133, 144 and 145 of the Cr.P.C. The instructions further placed
reliance on the notification dated 26.11.2022 issued under Section 20(2)
of the Cr.P.C., which replaced the SSP and District Magistrate with the
Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police in
districts operating under the Commissionerate system, insofar as the
provisions of the Act of 1986 and other Acts are concerned.
14. The instructions acknowledged that in the normal administrative
framework, the District Magistrate is the head of criminal administration
of the district and occupies a pre-eminent position in taking decisions
concerning action against organized criminals. However, the position of
the Home Department is that under the Commissionerate system, the
Police Commissioner, functioning as both the head of criminal
administration and the head of Executive Magistracy, supervises
preventive proceedings under Sections 107-116, 144 and 145 of the
Cr.P.C. The instructions further sought to justify the arrangement by
contending that police Commissionerates have predominantly been

7
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
established in metropolitan cities with populations exceeding ten lakh
persons, where the nature and volume of urban crime differ significantly
from rural areas. It was submitted that metropolitan centres serve as hubs
for sophisticated organized crime, including complex financial fraud, real
estate syndicates, and cyber extortion; that minimizing the administrative
layer of the District Magistrate ensures rapid dismantlement of fast-
moving criminal networks without bureaucratic latency; and that since
urban policing requires technical expertise in areas such as economic
offences and digital forensics- capabilities housed within the police force
rather than the revenue administration- direct police oversight ensures
more effective enforcement against modern gangsterism.
(B) Court's Response to the Home Department's Justification
15. This Court, while making clear that it entertained no confusion
regarding the authority of the legislative or executive branch to declare
any district as a metropolitan area or to establish a Commissionerate for
administrative purposes, firmly stated that its concern lay elsewhere. The
Court expressed unequivocal agreement with the "noble objective" of
adopting the Commissionerate system as a national best practice- on the
lines of Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad- for achieving zero
tolerance towards crime and criminals, however, the affidavit and
instructions filed by the Home Department failed to satisfy the
requirements of the previous orders, as department did not adequately
explain the reasons for departing from the requirement of involving the
District Magistrates, particularly with regard to compliance with the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021.
(C) The Core Judicial Concern: Misuse of Police Powers and
Systemic Failure
16. The order dated 27.11.2025 highlights the concern of this Court
and thus observed that the central problem was not the establishment of
the Commissionerate system per se, but rather the recurring misuse of
police powers and the over-application of stringent provisions by the

8
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
police. However, the Court found that the affidavit and instructions filed
by the Home Department failed to satisfy the requirements of the previous
orders, as they did not adequately explain the reasons for departing from
the requirement of involving the District Magistrates, particularly with
regard to compliance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, against street-level
and petty offenders, while actual gangsters and organized crime
syndicates- those involved in narcotics trade, financial frauds, land mafia
activities, procurement of benami government contracts through sham
companies, and white-collar criminals who harbour local offenders for
ulterior motives- remained largely unaffected due to an absence of any
systemic policy response.
17. The Court took serious note of several systemic failures,
including: the absence of any State policy for the expeditious disposal of
cases against habitual gangsters; the lack of any mechanism to secure
witness production; the absence of a fair and effective witness protection
scheme; the failure to ensure timely production of prosecution witnesses
before the court; the failure to sensitize District Government Counsels to
provide meaningful assistance to the Court; and, most significantly, the
absence of any programme to fix accountability on the police beyond old-
fashioned departmental inquiries, which were typically initiated only
against officers of the rank of Inspector and below.
18. Further, the Court observed that criminal trials against individuals
with two or more than two dozen FIRs had made no substantial progress
even after two to three decades of the filing of a charge-sheet. Bail
conditions were routinely flouted by gangsters and resourceful persons
engaged in organized crime, as the JD (Prosecution) and the DGCs were
not effectively discharging their duties to secure their presence before the
court on every date. Repetitive adjournment applications filed on behalf
of accused persons are frequently allowed, while prosecutors neither
objected to such adjournments nor pursued cancellation of bail. No
mechanism or State programme existed to regulate the affairs of
prosecutors or to fix their accountability.

9
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
(D) Judicial Observations on Administrative Ethics and Rule of Law
19. In a passage of considerable significance, this Court observed that
even the most well-intentioned and ostensibly noble ideas are liable to
miscarry when placed in the hands of poor administrators — those who
are inadequately trained and lacking in institutional competence, yet
highly ambitious and adept at maneuvering constitutional authorities. The
Court identified a fundamental flaw in traditional bureaucratic ethics: its
tendency to treat morality as something external to the day-to-day practice
of administration, rather than as an integral component of decision-
making. The Court emphasized that discretion conferred on civil servants
by the legislature is intended to be exercised strictly in furtherance of the
policy and object underlying the statute, and that the policy and purpose
of any gazette notification must be ascertained by construing the parent
enactment- in this case, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. However, the Court found that the
affidavit and instructions filed by the Home Department failed to satisfy
the requirements of the previous orders, as they did not adequately explain
the reasons for departing from the requirement of involving the District
Magistrates, particularly with regard to compliance with the provisions of
the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021- as a whole.
20. The Court further reminded the Home Department that selective
investigation and selective prosecution are antithetical to the rule of law
and inevitably corrode public trust in governance, and that at the core of a
democratic State, lies the premise that every citizen is not only equal
before the law but equally entitled to its protection and equally significant
2
in the eyes of a welfare State .
III- DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2025:
21. In view of the foregoing deliberations, this Court issued the
following specific directions:
2
Excerpt from ‘The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts’, by Axel
Honneth

10
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
(i) Again an affidavit was directed to be filed by an officer not below
the rank of Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
with the prior approval of the competent authority. The affidavit was
required to contain; (a) empirical data gathered from the districts and/or
Commissionerates on the basis of which the Department has arrived at its
subjective satisfaction that the exclusion of the District Magistrate from
the joint meeting under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules was justified and was in
the interest of the State and its citizens; (b) details of any data, comparative
analysis, or study conducted by the Department to substantiate that the
crime rate has decreased in Commissionerate districts subsequent to the
introduction of the system, as compared to non-Commissionerate districts;
and (c) details of any training programmes imparted to police officers
assigned to discharge functions earlier performed by District Magistrates,
along with particulars of any study demonstrating whether the Home
Department has successfully achieved its intended objective.
(ii) The Director General of Police (Prosecution) was directed to
furnish comprehensive district-wise data for the last ten years in respect
of cases under the U.P. Gangsters Act, including: the number of cases
registered; the number of charge-sheets filed; the number of convictions
secured; and the number of acquittals of charge-sheeted accused persons-
with a comparative analysis vis-à-vis non-Commissionerate districts. The
report was also required to disclose systemic reforms and policy decisions,
if any, taken by the Home Department to improve police working insofar
as the approval of the gang chart was concerned.
(iii) The Home Department was further directed to furnish details of: (a)
the names and number of officers- SSP/SP/DCP and above in police, and
Joint Director (Prosecution) and DGC in the prosecution department-
against whom disciplinary or administrative action has been taken during
the last ten years for acts of corruption, inefficiency, negligence,
procedural lapses, misuse of power, or violation of guidelines in matters
pertaining to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021 or in any ancillary issue; and (b) the nature of

11
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
such action, including warnings, adverse entries, suspensions, transfers,
departmental inquiries, or any other penalties imposed.
22. Copies of the order were directed to be transmitted to the
Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police
(Prosecution), and the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
23. Detailed analysis of the order dated 09.01.2026 clarifies this Court's
response to the affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home) in purported
compliance with the extensive directions issued by the order dated
27.11.2025 (supra). Upon careful perusal, this Court found that the
compliance was wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory, and the order dated
09.01.2026 reflects the Court's deepening concern at the conduct of the
Home Department. Following are the further observations of the Court on
the supplementary affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home).
(A) Inadequacy of the Affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home)
23.1 This Court in its order dated 09.01.2026, noted again that the
affidavit filed by the Secretary (Home) highlighted the purported "noble
objective" behind adopting the Commissionerate system- described as a
national best practice on the lines of Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and
Hyderabad- with the stated aim of achieving zero tolerance towards crime
and criminals, but it failed entirely to address the specific, pointed
requirements set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order dated 27.11.2025
(supra) in letter and spirit. The Court made it clear that it has no quarrel
with the Commissionerate system as an administrative model, as it had
stated earlier; however, the failure to furnish empirical data, comparative
crime statistics, training programme details, and accountability records-
as specifically directed- rendered the compliance affidavit wholly
inadequate.
(B) Judicial Observations on the Conduct of the Home Department
23.2 Upon perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the Home
Department, this Court observed, prima facie, that the officers concerned
has either failed to advert to the orders rendered by this Court or has
approached the matter in a lackadaisical manner. This approach, the Court

12
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
found, seemingly proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the power
to issue notifications, being vested in the executive branch, may be
exercised without due application of mind, by resorting to unfettered
discretion and without examining the consequential effects thereof.
23.3 The Court also reminded the Home Department that courts have
consistently reasserted their right to intervene in cases where
administrative decisions are irrational, abusive, and arbitrary, and that the
judiciary, rather than acting as guarantors of the rule of law by outsourcing
this obligation to the executive branch, has an independent duty to uphold
it. While the Court refrained from delving into the reasons underlying the
conduct of the officers concerned, it unequivocally stated that it could not
remain a mute spectator and would not hesitate to exercise the powers
vested in it in the interest of the citizens of the State and for upholding the
sanctity and authority of the judicial process.
(C) Issuance of Show-Cause Notice to the Additional Chief Secretary
(Home)
23.4 In view of the repeated failure of the Home Department to furnish
specific and pointed details sought through successive orders, this Court
issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home),
requiring him to explain the reasons for, and disclose the legal
impediments, if any, which has resulted in the Home Department's
persistent non-compliance.
IV- DIRECTION REGARDING THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE (PROSECUTION):
23.5 The order also noted that compliance with paragraph 10.1 of the
order dated 27.11.2025, requiring the Director General of Police
(Prosecution) to furnish comprehensive district-wise data under the
Gangsters Act for the last ten years, was still pending. Accordingly, the
Director General of Police (Prosecution) was granted one week's time to
comply with the said direction.
23.6 By order dated 26.02.2026, after hearing arguments of both sides
to their conclusion, this Court perused the affidavit dated 10.03.2025 filed

13
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
by the then Commissioner of Police, Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, and the
affidavit dated 25.02.2026 filed by the incumbent Commissioner of
Police, along with the enclosed true copies of the FIRs, charge-sheets, and
the dossier pertaining to the accused Rajendra Tyagi and his daughter-in-
law Lalita Tyagi. Upon perusal, this Court found, prima facie, that the then
Commissioner of Police, Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, appears to have
misused and abused the authority vested in him for initiating proceedings
against the applicants under the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters Act,
1986. A fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing was accordingly
afforded to Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra to place his response, and the
Government Advocate's office was directed to supply scanned copies of
both affidavits enabling him to file response to the Court’s observations
forthwith.
V- SUMMARY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH:
(A) Policy Background and Promulgation of Rules, 2021
24. In view of the State's zero-tolerance policy towards crime and
criminals and with the aim of taking effective action against organized
criminals under the Act of 1986, the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 were promulgated vide Notification
No. 5203/6 Po-9-2021-31(43)/2013 TC dated 27.12.2021. For strict
compliance of these Rules, guidelines have been further issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Home, vide Letter No. 1208/6-Po-9-22-
31(43)/2013 TC dated 18.04.2022, with a direction to strictly follow the
Rules, 2021.
(B) Justification for the Commissionerate System
25. The affidavit again reiterated that most major global and Indian
metropolitan cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad,
operate under the Commissionerate system as it is the established
"National Best Practice" for urban policing. Reverting to or imposing
District Magistrate oversight in these areas would be a retrograde step
deviating from this proven national model.

14
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
26. The State Government has issued notifications under Section 20 of
the Cr.P.C. appointing the Commissioner of Police as Executive
Magistrate and conferring upon him all the powers of the District
Magistrate under the Cr.P.C., 1973 and 14 other statutes, including the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Consequently, the Commissioner of Police exercises all powers
previously held by the District Magistrate, including the power of
attachment of property in Police Commissionerate districts. Based on this
notification, Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules provides for a joint meeting
between the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of
Police instead of the District Magistrate in Commissionerate districts.
27. It is further reiterated that the transition to the Commissionerate
system represents a shift towards specialized urban policing and that the
integration of DM powers into the office of the Police Commissioner is a
constitutionally and legally valid exercise intended to bring precision and
accountability to the fight against organized crime. The nature of crime in
metropolitan cities like Lucknow, Noida, and Kanpur has evolved beyond
traditional local disputes into real estate syndicates, shell companies
(benami transactions), and complex cyber-extortion. The expertise
required to dismantle such networks- digital forensics, financial auditing,
and criminal intelligence- resides exclusively within the specialized wings
of the Police Department such as the EOW and Cyber Cell, and not within
the Revenue Administration. Hence, oversight by a Police Commissioner
ensures that the Gang Chart is vetted by an authority with full technical
understanding of modern gangsterism.
28. The affidavit also addresses the issue of accountability. It is submitted
that in the traditional dual system, when an organized crime network
thrives, the Police blame the Magistracy for lack of approvals while the
Magistracy blames the Police for poor investigation. Under the
Commissionerate system, the Police Commissioner is solely accountable
for both prevention and prosecution of gangs, creating a "single point of
accountability" as sought by the Hon'ble Court in Para 7 of its order.
Additionally, the State has institutionalized a "Post-Acquittal Audit"

15
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
mechanism whereby every acquittal in a Gangsters Act case is reviewed
to determine whether it resulted from procedural negligence at the Gang
Chart approval stage.
(C) Measures Taken to Prevent Misuse
29. The affidavit details a series of administrative measures taken by
the State to prevent misuse of the Act of 1986 and to ensure strict
compliance with Rules, 2021.
30. The Rules, 2021 were notified with the specific aim of curbing the
possibilities of misuse of the Act of 1986. Further letters were issued by
the Additional Director General of Police, Crime, vide Letter No. DG-7 S
14-(09)/2021 dated 25.04.2022, and by the Director General of Police,
U.P., vide Letter No. DG 73-14-(09)/2021 dated 02.06.2022. DG Circular
No. 06/2023 dated 14.02.2023 was also issued to all Commissioners of
Police and Senior Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police for
compliance of Rules, 2021.
31. When it came to the notice of the Government that the instructions
have not been strictly followed and that officers are negligent in preparing
gang charts, directions for strict compliance were issued to all Police
Commissioners, District Magistrates, and Senior Superintendents of
Police/Superintendents of Police vide Government Order No. 3421/Ch-
Pu-9-22-31(43)/2013 TC dated 24.07.2023, with a further direction that
future negligence would entail personal responsibility of the concerned
officers.
32. Thereafter, vide Government Order No. 4705/Chh-Po-9-23-
31(43)/2013 TC dated 21.01.2024, the following specific directions were
issued to all concerned officers:
(a) Gang charts shall not be approved summarily but only after due
discussion in a joint meeting of the District Magistrate/Commissioner of
Police and the Senior Superintendent/Superintendent of Police.
(b) Rule 8(3) of the Rules shall necessarily be complied with, requiring
specific mention of the latest status of cases, convictions, and related
proceedings against gang members.

16
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
(c) The Nodal Officer (Additional Superintendent of Police) shall record
his satisfaction in clear words under Rule 16(1) of the Rules.
(d) Under Rule 16(2), the Senior Superintendent/Superintendent of Police
shall thoroughly analyze the Nodal Officer's recommendation and forward
the gang chart with recorded satisfaction to the District Magistrate or
Commissioner of Police for approval.
(e) Signatures on gang charts bearing pre-printed rubber stamps are
strictly prohibited under Rule 17(2); approval shall be recorded only after
proper independent application of mind.
(f) Rule 20(3) shall be strictly complied with; all investigation documents
must be examined by the concerned Prosecution Officer, and any illegality
or irregularity must be rectified before forwarding to the concerned Police
Officer.
(D) Empirical Data Supporting the Commissionerate System
33. The affidavit places on record empirical data from the period
25.03.2022 to 30.11.2025 to demonstrate the superior efficiency of the
Commissionerate system in targeting organized crime.
34. In respect of enforcement action, the Commissionerate system
recorded action against an average of 93 mafia members as against only
36 in non-Commissionerate districts, reflecting 258% higher enforcement
in Commissionerate districts. In respect of asset seizure efficiency, the
average value of property seized in Commissionerate districts was
approximately Rs. 1,024,991,730/- which is 61% higher than the non-
Commissionerate district average of Rs. 637,425,007/-.
35. A comparative table of gang chart approvals and court objections
further demonstrates the superiority of the Commissionerate system. Out
of 1,685 registered cases in Commissionerate districts, the Hon'ble Courts
raised objections in only 24 cases, a rate of approximately 1.42 per 100
FIRs, as compared to 221 objections in 10,832 cases in non-
Commissionerate districts, a rate of approximately 2.04 per 100 FIRs.
This data demonstrates that greater due diligence is exercised in the
Commissionerate system at the gang chart approval stage.

17
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
36. Comparative crime data for the period 2017–2020 (pre-
Commissionerate) and 2021–2024 (post-Commissionerate) also shows a
significant quantitative decrease in major crimes in the concerned
Commissionerate districts. Furthermore, Police Commissionerates have
demonstrated a more focused approach towards cyber-related crimes, as
reflected in the significant increase in FIR registrations under the IT Act,
indicating greater awareness and enforcement capacity.
(E) Training of Police Officers as Executive Magistrates
37. To ensure that police officers effectively discharge the functions
previously handled by District Magistrates, extensive training has been
imparted across all Commissionerate districts. The Lucknow
Commissionerate conducted 162 workshops and programmes training
officers from ACP to Commissioner rank on the Executive Magistrate’s
powers under the Cr.P.C., 1973, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, and the Gangsters Act. Gautam Buddha Nagar organised 119
workshops focusing on legal provisions and the 14 specific Acts
mentioned in the Commissionerate notification. Agra held specific
training sessions on multiple dates between 10.12.2022 and 18.01.2025,
and Prayagraj conducted workshops led by the Joint Director of
Prosecution to provide legal and procedural training to gazetted officers.
38. A five-day special online orientation programme was also
organized by the Judicial Training and Research Institute, U.P., Lucknow,
from 22 October 2024 to 28 October 2024 for District Magistrates, Police
Commissioners, Senior Superintendents of Police, and Superintendents of
Police across the State. The programme covered preparation of gang
charts, rules and procedures in the light of case laws, attachment and
release of property under the Act, 1986, and open house sessions. In this
programme, the officers were also made aware of the instructions issued
by the Hon'ble High Court regarding preparation of gang charts.
39. Various judgments of the Hon'ble High Court were referred to
during the programme, including; (i) Virendra Kasaudhan v. State of

18
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
3 4
U.P. , (ii) Narender Kumar v. State of U.P. , (iii) Jaydeep Nishad v. State
5
of U.P. , and six other reported judgments of the High Court.
40. The key points emphasized during the programme were that
competent authorities must clearly record their satisfaction in writing
under Rule 16 and not merely by affixing a pre-printed typed satisfaction;
that such satisfaction must reflect application of mind on both the Gang
Chart and all attached documents; that the date of filing of the charge sheet
must be mentioned in Column 6 of the gang chart; that minutes of the joint
meeting under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules must be maintained in a register;
that competent authorities must date their signatures; that the approving
authority must verify proper recording of satisfaction by the Nodal Officer
and District Police Head; and that before invoking the Act, the competent
authorities must record their satisfaction that the accused falls within the
definition of "gangster" under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1986, with such
satisfaction recorded in the minutes of the joint meeting.
(F) Disciplinary and Administrative Actions Taken
41. The affidavit discloses actions taken during the last 10 years
against errant officials of the Police Department and the Prosecution
Department under the U.P. Gangsters Act.
42. In the Police Department, Shri Anand Dev, Retd. IPS (2006), was
suspended on 12.11.2020 following the killing of eight police personnel
by the Vikas Dubey gang for allegedly providing protection to the
accused; departmental proceedings were concluded on 11.05.2023 with a
formal caution, besides him departmental proceedings have been
commenced against three other Indian Police Services Officers for
different reasons, including lack of supervision, and involvements of
activities not commensurate with the office of SSP.
43. In the Prosecution Department, a Senior Prosecution Officer in
Barabanki, faced departmental proceedings for indifference and
negligence in the discharge of prosecution duties in a Gangsters Act case.
3
2023 SCC OnLine All 1431
4
2023 SCC OnLine All 3979
5
2024 SCC OnLine All 445

19
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
Two Senior Prosecution Officers of Gorakhpur were found prima- facie
guilty of illegal gratification (bribery) and were suspended; their
departmental proceedings are currently in progress. A Joint Director
(Prosecution) in Baghpat received a formal warning for the entry of false
information in a Gang Chart and a second warning for procedural delays
in submitting Gang Charts for legal opinion.
(G) Constitutional Validity and Further Government Orders
44. The affidavit raises a constitutional argument, submitting that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has historically recognized the legislature's
wisdom in deciding the best administrative structure for a given area.
Once a district is declared a Metropolitan Area, the vesting of DM powers
in the Commissioner of Police is a statutory consequence of the Cr.P.C.,
and the Court's interference with the "Joint Meeting" requirement may
infringe upon the executive's policy-making domain.
45. Further detailed guidelines were issued vide Office Memorandum
No.4080/Six-Pu-9-2024-1842633 dated 24.09.2024, and a comprehensive
checklist of 29 points along with instructions for strict action against
negligent officers was issued vide Office Memorandum No. 4619/6-50-9-
2024-1867437 dated 02.12.2024.
VI- SUMMARY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AJAY MISHRA,
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRAYAGRAJ RANGE:
46. The affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police, Prayagraj
Range, records that he had earlier filed an affidavit dated 07.03.2025
before this Court in his capacity as Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad.
The present affidavit relates to the gang chart approved by him in Case
Crime No. 101 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the Act of 1986, registered
at Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad. At the outset, the
deponent expressed his unshakable faith in the rule of law and
unconditional commitment to it under all circumstances.
47. And further records that, while exercising his legal powers as
Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, applied his independent mind on the
basis of all facts and evidence available on record and approved the gang

20
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
chart after due discussion with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, City
Zone Ghaziabad, in a joint meeting held as per Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 5 of
the Rules.
48. To initiate proceedings under the Act, the In-charge Inspector of
Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, prepared a gang chart
detailing the criminal activities of the gang. The applicant Rajendra Tyagi,
his son Deepak Tyagi and his daughter-in-law Lalita Tyagi are stated to be
members of the gang who were indulging in anti-social activities with the
object of disturbing public order and gaining undue temporal, pecuniary,
material, or other advantage for themselves. Criminal cases were lodged
against them for offences punishable under Chapters XVII and XXII of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They are alleged to be gangsters who abet
or assist in the gang's activities as defined under clause (b) of Section 2 of
the Act of 1986.
49. The gang chart rests on two base cases (i) Case Crime No. 912 of
2022- registered under Sections 406 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station
Nandgram, District Ghaziabad. As per the FIR dated 02.09.2022, lodged
by informant Pankaj Tyagi, the accused applicants took money from the
informant and his business partners on the assurance of returning it,
subsequently failed to do so, and with dishonest intent induced the
informant into executing a registered agreement of sale in respect of their
property, but never executed the sale deed. During the investigation,
Section 420 IPC was also added, (ii) Case Crime No. 703 of 2021-
registered under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC at Police Station
Chandpur, District Bijnor. In this case, the accused induced the informant
and accrued money from him; when pressurised, they agreed to pay Rs.
32 lakhs within 45 days but failed to do so, resulting in the aforesaid FIR.
A settlement document between the informant and Deepak Tyagi, the
other gang member, establishing the transaction of movable property, was
also collected during the investigation, and the charge sheet was filed
under Sections 406, 504, and 506 IPC.
50. The officer has perused the copies of the FIRs and charge sheets
relating to the base cases, along with the gang chart, as required under

21
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
Rule 10 of the Rules. The officer has also examined the current status of
the trial of the base cases and the proceedings initiated under Section 14(1)
of the Act of 1986. Further, the list of criminal activities of the gang leader
and members, prepared by the SHO in Form No. 3 and annexed to the
dossier, has been scrutinized. The particulars of the offences committed
for pecuniary, materialistic, and temporal gains have been thoroughly
verified and matched with the Case Diary records in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Rules, 2021.
51. The gang chart passed through the following chain of approval,
with each officer independently applying his mind at every stage:
51.1 The SHO, after thoroughly matching and confirming all forms,
forwarded the gang chart to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP),
Nandgram, with a noting that the applicants were involved in fraud and
forgery worth crores of rupees under the garb of providing plots/land in
District Ghaziabad, and that their criminal activities fall under Section
2(b) of the Act, 1986.
51.2 The ACP, after ensuring the correctness and reliability of the entries
and facts as required under Rule 12(5) of the Rules, 2021, forwarded the
gang chart to the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Crime)/Nodal Officer for his perusal and independent application of
mind.
51.3 The Nodal Officer, after independently applying his mind and being
satisfied that there was just and satisfactory basis to proceed further,
forwarded the gang chart with his approval as per Rule 16(1) of the Rules,
2021.
51.4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), City District
Ghaziabad, upon receiving the gang chart with the Nodal Officer's clear
recommendation, thoroughly analyzed it. Only after confirming that all
statutory formalities had been fulfilled and that there existed a legal basis
for action, did the DCP forward the gang chart to the Commissioner of
Police, Ghaziabad, after applying his independent mind as per Rule 16(2)
of the Rules, 2021.

22
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
51.5 Finally, the Commissioner of Police, after thoroughly perusing all
facts and satisfying himself that the basis for action existed, approved the
gang chart after applying his independent mind in a joint discussion with
the DCP concerned, in accordance with Rule 16(3) of the Rules, 2021.
VII- PROCEEDINGS ON SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ACS
(HOME):
52. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2026, whereby a show cause
notice was issued to the ACS (Home), requiring him to explain the reasons
and disclose the legal impediments, if any, for the failure to furnish the
specific and pointed details, sought by this Court, preferred an SLP (Crl.)
before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated
03.02.2026 disposed of the SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1714-1715/2026 by observing
that in event the authorities fail to furnish the requisite details, as sought
by the High Court, it is the exclusive prerogative of the High Court to
proceed to decide the main case, including the legality of the notification
dated 26.11.2022 and permitted the applicant authorities to file one more
personal affidavit, if so advised, within a period of one week from date of
the order, and disposed of the SLP (Crl.) (supra) by keeping the para-9 of
the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 in abeyance. In effect, the
requirement of filing reply to the show cause notice was dispensed with.
VIII- SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL:
53. Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted
by Shri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA-I drew attention to Section 20 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to establish that appointment of
Executive Magistrates and the District Magistrate is a matter of executive
discretion vested solely in the State Government and is not subject to
judicial interference in the absence of a challenge to the relevant
notification or enactment.
54. He has further placed reliance upon the notification dated
26.11.2022, whereby the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Additional
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police,

23
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
Additional Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of Police, and
Commissioner of Police of the metropolitan area of Ghaziabad have been
appointed as Executive Magistrates. Further, all Additional
Commissioners of Police, Joint Commissioners of Police, and the
Commissioner of Police have been appointed as Additional District
Magistrate for Ghaziabad and have been conferred the powers of the
District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of 14
enactments as mentioned in the notification.
55. He next submitted that in the present case, neither a challenge has
been laid to the notification dated 26.11.2022 nor has the validity of
Section 20 of the Cr.P.C. been put to challenge. The law presumes that
every notification is a valid piece of law and that the provisions of an
enactment are duly valid unless and until declared to be ultra vires Part III
of the Constitution of India or ultra vires the competence of the concerned
Legislature. In the absence of such a challenge, the legislative wisdom
cannot be put to question by the applicant. Dealing with Section 20 of the
Cr.P.C., categorical pronouncements have been delivered by the Supreme
Court holding that the Court cannot enlarge the scope of the legislation or
its intention when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous.
The Court should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation
to futility, and every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its
language.
56. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon; (i) A.N. Roy,
6
Commissioner of Police v. Suresh Sham Singh , (ii) State of U.P. v.
7
Kaushailiya , (iii) Balamurugan v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police
8
(Law and Order) and others , (iv) Devi v. Executive Magistrate-cum-
9
Deputy Commissioner of Police and another .
57. The State submits that the District Magistrate is not a persona
designata. This position has been settled by various pronouncements of
the Supreme Court, this Court, and different High Courts across the
6
2006 (5) SCC 745
7
1963 SCC OnLine SC 159
8
2016 SCC Online Mad. 23460
9
2020 SCC Online Mad. 2706

24
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
country. The Commissioner of Police for the purpose of certain
enactments, who has been given the power of a District Magistrate by
virtue of Section 20 of the Cr.P.C., will be competent authority for the
purposes of such enactments inasmuch as the power vests in the Governor
to issue notification in the name of the State Government, conferring such
powers upon the Commissioner. Therefore, a Commissioner who is to
discharge duties by virtue of Section 20 Cr.P.C. will hold good as a District
Magistrate for the purposes of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. This position was long ago settled by a
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in (i) Central Talkies Ltd. v.
10 11
Dwarka Prasad , (ii) LIC v. Nandini J. Shah , (iii) Radha Kishan Yadav
12
v. State of U.P. and others , and (iv) Babu Lal Jain v. District Judge,
13
Bikaner .
58. He next submits that the Commissioner of Police exercises the
powers of the District Magistrate and holds the joint meeting with the
Deputy Commissioner of Police of the concerned Zone. There is no
illegality in the same. The inclusion or exclusion and the classification is
based on relevant criteria, inasmuch as Section 8 of the Cr.P.C. provides
for the declaration of a metropolitan area, and once a metropolitan area is
declared, there is a valid classification for invoking Section 20 of the
Cr.P.C. There thus exists a valid basis for excluding the District Magistrate
of the district in metropolitan areas for the purposes of the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and the other 13 Acts.
The wisdom of the State Government in this regard is not open for review
in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and can only be reviewed in judicial
review proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by
laying a challenge to the notification as well as to Sections 8 and 20 of the
Cr.P.C.
10
1961 SCC OnLine SC 125
11
2018 (15) SCC 356
12
2021 SCC Online All. 822
13
2016 SCC Online Raj. 8823

25
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
IX- FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT ON THE
BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED:
59. On the last date of hearing, Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Addi­
tional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned
A.G.A.-I, appeared and submitted that the constitutional validity of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 and the Rules framed thereunder is under challenge before a three-
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rameez Nemat and Another v. State
14 15
of Uttar Pradesh and Others , Irfan Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh , and
other connected matters. He further submitted that the Supreme Court has
taken cognizance of all issues connected therewith and, therefore, this
Court may refrain from undertaking an examination of the legality of the
Government Order dated 26.11.2022. According to him, the issues raised
in the present petition, as well as those that have emerged during the
course of the proceedings, may appropriately be decided after the Su­
preme Court finally adjudicates upon the validity of the Gangsters Act.
60. However, the 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has granted
liberty to this Court to examine and decide the legality of the notification
dated 26.11.2022. Accordingly, this Court, in its wisdom, may undertake
such examination. Nevertheless, since the larger issues concerning the
constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the Rules framed thereunder are
presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, the outcome
thereof is likely to have a direct bearing on the matters involved in the
present petition. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to refrain from
rendering a final determination on the issues raised in the present petition,
but there are certain issues which engaged the attention of the Court dur­
ing the court proceedings and needs deliberation in the interest of the State
and Public Policy. 
14
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 225 of 2025
15
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 84 of 2026

26
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
61. Uttar Pradesh, by virtue of its demographic magnitude and polit­
ical significance, has historically been a crucible of political hegemony,
driven by the feudal mindset of politicians and bureaucrats. It has long
reduced constitutional governance to an instrument of personal dominion
rather than public service. The administrative machinery of the State has,
over successive regimes, been susceptible to deep political penetration.
This court has no hesitation in observing that transfers, postings, and
promotions of officers have frequently been instruments of political pat­
ronage rather than merit-based governance, barring a few. Officers per­
ceived as loyalists are rewarded with preferred postings- urban Commis­
sionerates, lucrative districts- while those demonstrating independence
are transferred punitively to inconsequential assignments, a well-known
fact.
62. A systemic and deeply entrenched culture has emerged wherein a
considerable section of the officer cadre treats the rule of law not as a
constitutional obligation but as an operational inconvenience. Arrests are
effected without due process, many times FIRs are registered or sup­
pressed with ulterior motives, and preventive detention provisions are in­
voked arbitrarily, at the whims of officers. The procedural safeguards
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and now the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, are routinely bypassed. Judicial orders are complied
with in form but defeated in substance.
63. The vertical loyalty of officers runs not toward the Constitution
but toward the ruling dispensation. Field officers, acutely conscious of the
transfer-posting economy, calibrate their conduct to satisfy political su­
periors. Encounter killings, selective crackdowns, and targeted use of the
Gangsters Act against inconvenient individuals have periodically attrac­
ted judicial notice. The High Court has, on numerous occasions, deprec­
ated this tendency and reminded officers that their posts are constitutional
in character and must not be reduced to instruments of individual con­
venience.

27
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
64. It is apposite to recall that the police officer, who was entrusted
with the supervision of the entire operation in the Bikru massacre- wherein
a gangster and his associates ambushed a police team that had arrived to
effect his arrest, brutally killing eight policemen, including a Deputy Su­
perintendent of Police- was, upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry,
visited with nothing more than a ‘formal caution’. This Court finds it dif­
ficult to reconcile such a disproportionately lenient outcome with the
gravity of the supervisory failure involved, and it is precisely this culture
of institutional impunity that emboldens those in authority to remain un­
accountable, perpetuating the feudal and politically patronised adminis­
trative ecosystem that this Court has adverted to hereinabove.
65. With deep constitutional concern, this Court concludes that the
Home Secretary, as the senior-most bureaucratic authority in the Home
Department, occupies a pivotal position in this ecosystem. Rather than
functioning as an independent constitutional authority charged with im­
plementing the government's vision, policies, and programmes through
impartial executive action. Certain officers who rose to the post of Home
Secretary have, in practice, served as conduits for self-serving interests.
Recommendations on postings, approvals of departmental proceedings,
and responses to court proceedings have, in such instances, reflected
considerations driven by personal or extrinsic calculations rather than
dispassionate and constitutionally informed administrative judgment. This
fundamentally compromises the institutional integrity that the position
demands.
66. It is within this precise context that this Court's observation- that
the Home Department must independently evaluate the suitability and
operational effectiveness of its officers- carries profound constitutional
significance. It is a solemn judicial reminder that constitutional gov­
ernance cannot be held hostage to individual expediency or an individual’s
convenience, and that the State apparatus must remain answerable to the
law and to the Constitution, and not to any ruling establishment.

28
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
X- FINDINGS ON THE MERITS OF THE PRESENT CASE UPON
CONSIDERATION OF RECORD AND SUBMISSIONS:
67. On the merits of the present case, it’s established that the proceed­
ings under the Gangsters Act have been invoked on the basis of two FIRs:
(i) FIR No. 912 of 2022, registered under Sections 406 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code at P.S. Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, pursuant to the
FIR dated 02.09.2022 lodged by informant Pankaj Tyagi; and (ii) FIR No.
703 of 2021, registered under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code at P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor, lodged by informant Sapna
Agarwal.
68. In FIR No.912 of 2022 (supra), there are two accused- Rajendra
Tyagi and Deepak Tyagi, whereas in FIR No.703 of 2021 (supra), there
are four accused- Deepak Tyagi, Dinesh alias Babli Tyagi, Rajendra Tyagi
and Lalita Tyagi.
69. Admittedly, both FIRs pertain to financial transactions and pay­
ment of money in connection with the purchase of land, and the accused
also issued certain cheques in favour of the complainant. Accused Ra­
jendra Tyagi, Deepak Tyagi, and Lalita Tyagi are family members. Lalita
Tyagi is the wife of Deepak Tyagi, who was aged about 35 years at the
time of his arrest. On perusal of the entire charge-sheet, not a single
averment has been made particularly against accused Lalita Tyagi, or cu­
mulatively against the other two accused, which could satisfy the in­
gredients of Section 2 of the Gangsters Act. The accused may have com­
mitted offences of cheating and forgery; however, the same does not
amount to, and cannot be construed as, running an organised gang.
70. The activities and the material placed on record do not satisfy the
ingredients of Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. There is no material on record which
could establish the use of violence, intimidation, coercion, or any other
means with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue
temporal or pecuniary advantage.

29
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
71. This Court, vide order dated 03.03.2025, directed the Commis­
sioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to place on record the material available with
the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police be­
fore approving the gang-chart, and the methodology adopted to quantify
the alleged earnings of the gang. No such material has been produced be­
fore this Court, except bald assertions. On the basis of mere assertions, the
provisions of the Gangsters Act cannot be invoked.
72. The record suggest, the incumbent Commissioner of Police has
not followed the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Gorakhnath
16
Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh , and this Court in Vinay Kumar Gupta
(supra) while approving the gang-chart. The guidelines issued vide Office
Memorandum No. 4080/Six-Pu-9-2024-1842633 dated 24.09.2024 has
also not been adhered to, the charge-sheet suggests.
73. There is yet another aspect of the present case that warrants seri­
ous consideration, namely, the arrest of co-accused Lalita Tyagi- a young
lady aged about 35 years, a homemaker- on the day immediately follow­
ing the registration of the impugned FIR. No material whatsoever has been
placed on record to justify or sustain her arrest, and on the face of it, the
said arrest was patently illegal, arbitrary, and wholly unwarranted in law.
The Investigating Officer exercised the power of arrest in a manifestly
unjustified and high-handed manner, betraying a complete non-applica­
tion of mind to the settled legal principles governing the necessity of ar­
rest.
74. The Commissioner of Police has failed to supervise the investiga­
tion; in such nature of cases, all directions are flowed from the office of
the Commissioner of Police. Government Order No. 3421/Ch-Pu-9-22-
31(43)/2013 TC dated 24.07.2023, issued by the Additional Chief Sec­
retary (Home), records that the officer concerned shall be personally re­
sponsible for dereliction of duty and misuse of authority. Office Memor­
andum No. 4619/6-50-9-2024-1867437 dated 02.12.2024 records a com­
16
SLP(Crl) No. 007453 / 2025; Diary No. 2673 of 2023

30
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
prehensive checklist of 29 points, along with instructions for strict action
against negligent officers.
75. It has been argued that the officer whose conduct has been called
into question in the present case is known for a volatile and unpredictable
temperament, and that he frequently reacts impulsively in professional
situations without due application of mind. It has further been submitted
that he has consistently displayed a maverick and arbitrary approach to
administration, routinely disregarding established norms, procedures, and
the rule of law, while exhibiting a marked tendency to abuse the authority
vested in him by virtue of his office. It was further submitted that during
his posting as Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, his conduct has, on
several occasions, borne the unmistakable character of vindictiveness and
high-handedness, which has raised grave concerns regarding his fairness,
objectivity, and fitness for positions of responsibility that demand bal­
anced judgment, institutional restraint, and scrupulous adherence to law.
76. However, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot exam­
ine or assess the behavioural attributes and officer-like qualities of an in­
dividual officer unless and until some concrete and credible material is
placed before it. Moreover, judicial wisdom and institutional propriety
restrain this Court from taking cognizance of, or placing reliance upon,
unsubstantiated submissions advanced at the Bar. It is, therefore, for the
Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to independently con­
sider and evaluate the suitability and operational effectiveness of its of­
ficers insofar as field postings are concerned.
XI- ORDER:
77. In view of the aforesaid deliberations, the entire proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial No. 3072 of 2023, titled State v. Rajendra Tyagi
and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2023 under Sections 2/3
of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986, registered at P.S. Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, and pending
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, are hereby
quashed. The application is, accordingly, allowed.

31
A482 No. 6547 of 2025
78. Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, the then Commissioner of Police,
Ghaziabad, failed to exercise supervisory control over his subordinates,
and the actions in question occurred under his authority and watch as
Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad. On account of the approval of pro­
ceedings under the Gangsters Act, 1986, a young lady aged about 35 years
remained in judicial custody for approximately 80 days. The case neither
satisfies the ingredients of the Act of 1986 nor fulfils the parameters jus­
tifying arrest.
79. Taking a lenient view and having regard to the future career pro­
spects of the officer, this Court considers it just and appropriate to direct
Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Inspector General of Police, Prayagraj, to re­
main vigilant and circumspect in the discharge of his official functions,
befitting the responsibilities of a position that demands balanced judg­
ment, institutional restraint, and scrupulous adherence to law.
80. This Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable assist­
ance rendered by Shri Roopak Chaubey, learned A.G.A-I, and Shri Par­
itosh Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I.
June 03, 2026
Shafique
(Vinod Diwakar, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAFIKUR RAHAMAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad