Vinod Bihari Lal vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 767
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 777-778 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5376-5377 of 2023)


VINOD BIHARI LAL …APPELLANT

VERSUS


STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS



J U D G M E N T




Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2025.05.23
15:56:45 IST
Reason:




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
i. Application of mind and satisfaction of competent authorities ..................... 29
F. CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 37










Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 1 of 38

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
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 2 of 38

XXII of the IPC respectively for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for
themselves by forging documents. On the basis of the following base FIRs,
the subject FIR was registered:

Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 3 of 38

Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 4 of 38

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 of the subject FIR;
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 5 of 38

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.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 6 of 38

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 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,
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 7 of 38

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.

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.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 8 of 38



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 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
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 9 of 38

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.
(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.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 10 of 38

(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
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:
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 11 of 38

“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
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”
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 12 of 38

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/charge-
sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a
“gang” and has indulged in any of the anti-social
activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act,
such as, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or
intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of
disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal,
pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any
other person and he/she can be termed as “gangster”
within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can
be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act .”
(Emphasis supplied)


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
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 13 of 38

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 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.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 14 of 38

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 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.

Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 15 of 38

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
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
406/419/20/467/468/471120-B 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,
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 16 of 38

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 above-named 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 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 .”

Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 17 of 38

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. From the investigation till date, statement of
the Complainant and witnesses, perusal of gang chart
and FIRs mentioned in gang chart as well as charge-
sheet, through permission from Senior Superintendent of
Police, Prayagraj, offence under sections 2/3 of Uttar
Pradesh Gangster Act and Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986
are very well proved against the accused, i.e., (1) Vinod
B. Lal son of Mr. Bihari Lal resident of Agriculture
Campus, P.S. Naini, Prayagraj, (2) David Dutta son of Mr.
A.B. Dutta resident of 86, Meurabad, P.S. Cantt.,
Prayagraj. Charge-Sheet bearing No.235/2019 dated
09.05.2019 against the accused persons is submitted
before the Hon'ble Court. Investigation is concluded.”

30. The contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and cavalier attitude
on the part of the investigating agency, as it discloses nothing beyond what
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 18 of 38

was already stated in the subject FIR. Further, it remains obscure how the
investigating authorities could assert that the offence under Section(s) 2
and 3 respectively stands “proved” against the appellant sans enclosing
any documentary proved. We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast
it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an
offence to be “proved”. We would like to remind that the role of
investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to conducting an impartial
investigation into the alleged crime; the guilt or the innocence of the
accused is for the trial court to determine.

31. It is noteworthy to mention that the subject FIR was registered after
approximately a year from the date of the registration of the first base FIR.
In the three base FIRs – FIR No. 726/2017, FIR No. 761/2017, and FIR
No. 244/2017, respectively, the allegations against the appellant pertain
to offences under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the IPC and thus, may fall
within the scope of anti-social activities itemized under Section 2(b). Even
assuming, for the sake of argument, that these acts were committed by
any of the means specified therein, they do not, even in the remotest
possibility, appear to us that they had 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.

32. It is also pertinent to note that in the impugned proceedings, the
appellant and one David Dutta have been arraigned as gangsters, whereas
in the above-mentioned three base FIRs, David Dutta 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
David Dutta together. If the investigating agency contemplated the
existence of a gang comprising of both known and unknown persons, then
it becomes incumbent upon the investigating agency to specify the same
in both the gang-chart and the chargesheet.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 19 of 38


33. We find merit in the submission advanced by Mr. Dave that if the
subject FIR and the gang-chart were indeed prepared on the strength of
the base FIRs, there is no good or plausible explanation coming from the
investigating agency as to why no investigation was initiated against other
similarly placed accused persons named therein. This selective approach
raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the investigating agency and
integrity of the investigation undertaken under the Act of 1986.

34. Moreover, of the two remaining base FIRs – FIR No. 476/2017 and FIR
No. 170/2017 respectively, one has already been quashed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 385/2024 vide order dated 24.01.2024. In the other
FIR, i.e., FIR No. 170/2017, the date of the incident is conspicuously
absent, though the FIR itself was registered on 21.08.2017. The allegations
therein pertain to the administration of a school and cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be said to have been committed with the object of
disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material, or other advantage for the appellant or any other person.

35. The allegations also fail to disclose whether any act of violence, threat,
show of violence, intimidation, or coercion was resorted to for achieving
the said object. Even the chargesheet filed pursuant to the investigation
in the said base FIR, apart from mere reiteration of the contents of the FIR,
makes only a vague reference to the signatures allegedly forged on certain
forms and documents.


36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in view
of the vague and general allegations levelled in the subject FIR, requiring
the appellant to stand trial would amount to nothing but an abuse of the
process of law. Non-interference in such a case would result in miscarriage
of justice.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 20 of 38

ii. Principles of quashing couched in Section 482 of the CrPC
37. This Court, in catena of decisions, has observed that it is not for the
courts to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations made in the FIR at the stage of quashing of the proceedings.
However, it is of paramount importance that the allegations made against
the accused, if taken at face value, must disclose the commission of an
offence, whether from the FIR, the chargesheet, or other relevant
materials. It is incumbent upon the courts to exercise their discretionary
powers where the materials on record indicate that the criminal proceeding
are being misused as instruments of oppression or harassment.

38. In R.P. Kapur v . State of Punjab , reported as 1960 SCC OnLine SC
21 , this Court held that where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge, the High Court can and should quash
the proceedings. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 6.[…]It is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction
of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings
in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an
accused person must be tried under the provisions of the
Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere
with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is
not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this
inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some
categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can
and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings.
There may be cases where it may be possible for the High
Court to take the view that the institution or continuance
of criminal proceedings against an accused person may
amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the
quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the
ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in
respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by
an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is
a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 21 of 38

said proceeding the High Court would be justified in
quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the
requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under
this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations
in the first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such
cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a
matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first
information report to decide whether the offence alleged
is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for
the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust
to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued
against the accused person. A third category of cases in
which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be
successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling
under this category the allegations made against the
accused person do constitute offence alleged but there is
either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important
to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there
is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is
manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation
made and cases where there is legal evidence which on
its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in
question[…] ”
(Emphasis supplied)

39. In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameter nos. 1 and
7 respectively of Bhajan Lal ( supra ) referred to above. The duty of the
court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings
on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious,
or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was
delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v . State of U.P. , reported
as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 , wherein one of us, J.B. Pardiwala, J., was
part of the Bench. We may refer to the following observations with profit:
“ 34. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 22 of 38

FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous
or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the
Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a
little more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused with
an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,
then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well
drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in
the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look
into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances leading to
the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for
instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background of
such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged .”
(Emphasis supplied)

40. The learned A.A.G submitted that considering the criminal
antecedents of the appellant, the impugned proceedings may not be
quashed. In this regard, details have been furnished qua the antecedents
of the appellant. Although, a perusal of the same may give an impression
that the appellant is a history sheeter and hardened criminal yet as held
in Mohammad Wajid ( supra ), the criminal antecedents of an accused
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 23 of 38

cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the proceedings if
otherwise no offence is disclosed. It would be apposite to revisit the
relevant observations, which read as follows:
“ 38.[…] However, when it comes to quashing of the FIR or
criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the
accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to
quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a
legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever
bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to
disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within
one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the
case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not
decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that
the accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution
has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons
named as accused. In Directorate of
Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370,
this Court explicitly recognises the right to not to be
disturbed without sufficient grounds as one of the
underlying mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Thus, the requirement and need to balance the law
enforcement power and protection of citizens from
injustice and harassment must be maintained. It goes
without saying that the State owes a duty to ensure that
no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also
owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are
unnecessarily harassed .”
(Emphasis supplied)

41. Upon evaluating the present case in the context of the allegations made
and in light of the decisions referred, we have no hesitation in saying that
the High Court committed an egregious error in declining to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the subject FIR No.
850/2018 and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof qua the
appellant.
b. Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Rules of 2021
42. At this stage, it is important to ascertain whether the gang-chart was
approved in conformity with the Rules of 2021. The general rules to be
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 24 of 38

followed qua approval of gang-chart have been stipulated in Rule 5 of the
Rules of 2021. It reads thus:
“5 . General Rules.—(1) To initiate proceedings under this
Act, the concerned Incharge of Police Station/Station
House Officer/Inspector shall prepare a gang-chart
mentioning the details of criminal activities of the gang.
(2) The gang-chart will be presented to the district head of
police after clear recommendation of the Additional
Superintendent of Police mentioning the detailed activities
in relation to all the persons of the said gang.
(3) The following provisions shall be complied with in
respect of gang-charts:—
a. The gang-chart will not be approved summarily but
after due discussion in a joint meeting of the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police.
b. There may be no gang of one person but there may be
a gang of known and other unknown persons and in that
form the gang-chart may be approved as per these rules.
c. The gang-chart shall not mention those cases in which
acquittal has been granted by the Special Court or in
which the final report has been filed after the
investigation. However, the gang-chart shall not be
approved without the completion of investigation of the
base case.
d. Those cases shall not be mentioned in the gang-chart,
on the basis of which action has already been taken once
under this Act.
e. A separate list of criminal history, as given in Form
No.—4, shall be attached with the gang-chart detailing all
the criminal activities of that gang and mentioning all the
criminal cases, even if acquittal has been granted in those
cases or even where final report has been submitted in
the absence of evidence.
Along with the above, a certified copy of the gang register
kept at the police station shall also be attached with the
gang-chart. In addition to the above, the information of
crime and gang members mentioned in the gang-chart will
also be updated on Interoperable Criminal Justice System
(ICJS) portal and Crime and Criminal Tracking Network
System (CCTNS ).”

Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 25 of 38

43. Likewise, Rules 16 and 17 respectively stipulate the manner for
approval of gang-chart and the application of independent mind by the
competent authorities. The same are quoted below:
“ 16. Forwarding of Gang-Chart.-The following manner
shall be followed in the forwarding of Gang-Chart:
(1) Forwarding of the gang-chart by the Additional
Superintendent of Police.- The Additional Superintendent
of Police will not only take a quick forwarding action in the
case but he will duly peruse the gang-chart and all the
attached forms; and when it is satisfied that there is a
just and satisfactory basis to pursue the case, only then
will he forward the letter along with the recommendation
given below on the gang-chart to the Superintendent of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police.
“Thoroughly studied the gang-chart and attached
evidence. The basis of action under the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 exists. Accordingly, forwarded with
recommendation.”
(2) Forwarding of the gang-chart by the district police in-
charge.- When the gang-chart along with all the Forms is
received by the Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police with the clear
recommendation of the Additional Superintendent of
Police, he will also thoroughly analyze all the facts and
when it is confirmed that all the formalities of the Act,
have been fulfilled and there is a legal basis for taking
action in the case, then he should forward the gang-chart
to the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate stating
that:
“I have duly perused the gang-chart and attached
forms and I am fully satisfied that all the particulars
mentioned in the case are correct and there is a
satisfactory basis for taking action under the Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. Accordingly, approved.”
(3) Resolution of the Commissioner of Police/District
Magistrate.- When the gang-chart is sent to the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate along with all
the Forms, all the facts will also be thoroughly perused by
the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate and when
he is satisfied that the basis of action exists in the case,
then he will approve the gang -chart stating therein that:
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 26 of 38

“I duly perused the gang-chart and attached Forms in
the light of the evidence attached with the gang-chart,
satisfactory grounds exist for taking action under the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. The gang-chart is approved
accordingly.”
It is noteworthy that the words written above are only
illustrative. There is no compulsion to write the same
verbatim but it is necessary that the meaning of approval
should be the same as the recommendations written
above and it should also be clear from the note of approval
marked.

17. Use of independent mind.—(1) The Competent
Authority shall be bound to exercise its own independent
mind while forwarding the gang-chart.
(2) A pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart should not be
signed by the Competent Authority; otherwise the same
shall tantamount to the fact that the Competent Authority
has not exercised its free mind. ”

44. Rule 5(3)(a) stipulates that a gang chart shall be approved only after
due discussion in a joint meeting comprising the District Magistrate,
Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent
of Police, and not through a summary process.

45. In the present case, there is nothing on record, even upon a
microscopic examination, to indicate that a joint meeting was held prior to
approval of the gang-chart. It is apparent that the gang-chart was
approved summarily, without any discussion. It was forwarded and
approved swiftly, without regard for compliance with the relevant rules.
The compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) ought to be evident through the record of
minutes of the joint meeting maintained in a register by the District
Magistrate.

46. Further, Rule 16 mandates that the Additional Superintendent of
Police shall forward the letter, alongwith a recommendation on the gang-
chart, to the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police only
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 27 of 38

upon being satisfied that there exists a just and satisfactory grounds to
pursue the case. The Additional Superintendent of Police is required to
record his recommendation in clear words. It is further incumbent upon
the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to
thoroughly analyze all the facts, and only upon being satisfied that all the
requirements under the Act are fulfilled and that grounds for taking action
exists, he should forward the gang-chart to the Commissioner of
Police/District Magistrate. The Superintendent of Police/Senior
Superintendent of Police must also record his satisfaction not only qua the
particulars of the case but also the grounds to proceed under the Act of
1986.

47. Furthermore, upon receipt of the gang chart along with all the requisite
forms, the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate is required to
thoroughly examine all the facts afresh and, only upon being satisfied that
sufficient grounds exist to proceed, may approve the gang chart. The
recorded satisfaction must clearly reflect that the Commissioner of
Police/District Magistrate has scrutinized the gang-chart and the
accompanying forms in light of the evidence annexed thereto.

48. Once again we are anguished that not only there is no material on
record to indicate communication of the satisfaction of the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and the District
Magistrate, but also there is no mention as to on which particular date the
gang-chart was forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Police to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, and thereafter, to the District
Magistrate for approval.

49. Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority must exercise its
independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. It unequivocally
prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, thereby making it
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 28 of 38

impermissible for the authority to mechanically affix its signature. The
underlying objective of this prohibition is to ensure that the competent
authority undertakes a conscious and reasoned application of mind,
rather than merely endorsing a pre-prepared document. Such a safeguard
is integral to preserving the procedural sanctity of the law and preventing
arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely affect the rights and
liberties of individuals.
i. Application of mind and satisfaction of competent authorities

50. We would like to begin with observations of Lord Halsbury in Sharp
v . Wakefield , 1891 A.C. 173 at page 179;
“ An extensive power is confided to the justices in their
capacity as justices to be exercised judicially; and
“discretion” means when it is said that something is to be
done within the discretion of the authorities that that
something is to be done according to the rules of reason
and justice, not according to private opinion…; according
to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague,
and fanciful, but legal and regular[…] ”
(Emphasis is ours)

51. The satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking
action under the Act of 1986. It is indispensable for the approving
authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, to indicate
application of mind before approving the gang-chart. The recording of
satisfaction need not be exhaustive, because at the stage of approval the
investigation under the Act of 1986 is yet to be conducted, but it must be
independent, indicating the reasons justifying the exercise of jurisdiction
under the Act of 1986.

52. It is equally apposite to mention that the satisfaction must not be a
cyclostyle reproduction of the application of mind communicated by the
recommending authority. This is only possible when the approving
authority meticulously refers to the materials on record on the basis of
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 29 of 38

which he will come to the conclusion about existence of grounds justifying
registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986. Needless to say, reiteration
of the contents of the FIR or chargesheet does not constitute application
of mind.

53. Such satisfaction must stand on certain grounds; it cannot arise in
absence of any basis, leaving the liberty of the accused in a precarious
position. The basis of satisfaction must bear a reasonable nexus with the
facts present before the concerned authority. Thus, the decision of the
recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively must
be at the behest of the application of mind to the relevant and material
facts available on record.


54. An independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it is
demonstrable from the record that the approving authority has, in letter
and spirit, independently considered all the materials that culminated in
the preparation and placement of the gang chart before him. While the
correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond the scope of
judicial scrutiny, the absence thereof certainly does not. A mechanical or
routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving
authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the
liberty of citizens.

55. This Court in Nenavath Bujji v . State of Telangana & Ors. , reported
as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 , wherein one of us, J. B. Pardiwala J.,
writing for the Bench, while examining the attributes of satisfaction of the
detaining authority under the relevant enactment, held that application of
mind is implicit in subjective satisfaction of an authority. It was expressly
held that proper satisfaction of the authority should be reflected clearly
and in categorical terms. We shall reproduce the observations which apply
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 30 of 38

mutatis mutandis to the satisfaction of the approving authority. It reads
thus:
“ 43. We summarize our conclusions as under:—
(i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration
only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite
subjective satisfaction,
(ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and
administrative, that wherever a decision-making function
is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of the statutory
functionary, there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to
the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those
which are irrelevant & remote,
(iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition
that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of
the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be
questioned by the court for insufficiency of material.
Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider
relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary,
immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such
subjective satisfaction would be vitiated,
(iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not
sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective
satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to
ascertain as to whether the decision-making process for
reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective
facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant
considerations or non-application of mind,
(v) While making a detention order, the authority should
arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected
clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention,
(vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement
in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu
from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to
justify the detention order from the material that existed
before him and the process of considering the said
material should be reflected in the order of detention while
expressing its satisfaction,
(vii) Inability on the part of the state's police machinery to
tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse
to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,
(viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the
ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of
detention. It cannot be explained by reason(s)/grounds(s)
not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 31 of 38

must be the natural culmination of the application of mind
to the relevant and material facts available on the record,
and,
(ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order
of preventive detention, the detaining authority
must, first examine the material adduced against the
prospective detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or
antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and,
second, if the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must
further consider whether it is likely that the said person
would act in a manner prejudicial to the public order in
near future unless he is prevented from doing so by
passing an order of detention. For passing a detention
order based on subjective satisfaction, the answer of the
aforesaid aspects and points must be against the
prospective detenu. The absence of application of mind to
the pertinent and proximate material and vital matters
would show lack of statutory satisfaction on the part of
the detaining authority .”
(Emphasis supplied)

56. Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gang-
chart, it is abundantly clear that the said gang-chart was approved by the
competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-printed
gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete non-
application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the
Rules of 2021 respectively. At the cost of repetition, we would like to
reiterate that the recommending, forwarding, and approving authority are
not mere rubber-stamping entities.

57. The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart
without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with the
Rules of 2021. Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR is in
complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe
that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and
liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox
guarding the henhouse.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 32 of 38


58. The High Court of Allahabad in Sanni Mishra v . State of U.P. ,
reported as 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975 , came down heavily on the police
authorities for the manner in which gang charts were being prepared, as
well as the lack of application of mind by the District Magistrate in
approving them. The Court laid down specific directions for the
preparation of gang-charts prior to registration of an FIR under the Act of
1986. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 22. In view of the above, this court lays down following
directions for preparation of gang-chart before lodging FIR
under the Gangster Act, 1986:
(i) Date of filing of chargesheet under base case must be
mentioned in Column-6 of the gang-chart except in cases
under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021.
(ii) While forwarding or approving the gang-chart,
competent authorities must record their required
satisfaction by writing in clear words, not by signing the
printed/typed satisfaction.
(iii) There must be material available for the perusal of the
court which shows that the District Magistrate before
approving the gang-chart had conducted a joint meeting
with the District Police Chief and held a due discussion
for invocation of the Gangster Act, 1986 .”
(Emphasis supplied)

59. We also deem it necessary to make certain observations regarding the
investigation conducted pursuant to the approval of the gang-chart and
the registration of the subject FIR under the Act of 1986 respectively. Rule
20 mandates that, during the course of investigation, evidence pertaining
to the elements of economic, material, and worldly benefits must be
specifically collected. Upon being satisfied that credible, substantial, and
logically coherent evidence has been compiled in accordance with the
requirements of the Act, the Additional Superintendent of Police shall
forward the report to the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent
of Police for sanction.

Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 33 of 38

60. In the present case, the sanction order merely states that, based on
the examination of the evidence collected, the accused were found to be
involved in the commission of offences under the IPC by forming a gang
with the objective of deriving economic and monetary benefits, and that a
prima facie case exists for filing a chargesheet under Section(s) 2 and 3 of
the Act of 1986.

61. The materials gathered during the investigation are reflected in the
chargesheet, reproduced hereinabove, and comprise the statements of six
witnesses – namely, the Inspector-in-Charge, P.S. Naini, two constables
posted at the same station, and the complainants in base FIRs No.
726/2017 and 244/2017. The statement of the above-mentioned
witnesses does not add to what has already been stated in the base FIRs.
It cannot be gainsaid that the 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. At the
stage of forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the competent
authorities are under the obligation to record their satisfaction that a case
for action under the Act of 1986 is made out, and the gang-chart and other
records should reflect such satisfaction.

62. The impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned order clearly
bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court which
makes the interference of this Court necessary. We are of a firm view that
continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would
result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and
will result in the abuse of process of law.

63. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath Mishra v . State of
Uttar Pradesh , Crl. Appeal No. 2589/2025, vide order dated 19.04.2024
directed the respondent-State to postulate necessary
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 34 of 38

parameters/guidelines for the purpose of invoking provisions of the Act of
1986. In compliance of the same, the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide
Office Memorandum/Circular No. 4619/Chha-Pu-9-2024-1867437 dated
02.12.2024 identified certain shortcomings of the existing paraphernalia
and introduced certain directions to correct the same alongwith a 29-
points Checklist.


64. In light of the foregoing, we direct the concerned authorities to adhere
to the aforementioned guidelines and comply to the Checklist, in both
letter and spirit. In view of the facts of the present case at hand, we would
like to inject thrust into the Guidelines dated 02.12.024, and also
subsume the following portions of the Guidelines as a part of this
judgment. They read as follows:
“(1) Provisions of the Act be applied only when gangster
commits the crime by violence, threat or show of violence
or intimidation or coercion etc. alone or group with the
object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue
temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for
himself or any other person.
xxx
(3) Attested copy of the Gang Register, maintained at
Police Station, be also enclosed with gang-chart. Also the
criminal details collected by DCRB and CCTNS/ICJS be
enclosed.
xxx
(8) On receiving the case file at the office of the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate, again end to
end perusal of all the facts be made and this be ensured
according to rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules 2021 that only after
being satisfied by holding a joint meeting with the Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police, gang-
chart be approved by the Police Commissioner/District
Magistrate.
(9) After preparing the gang chart and getting the same
approved and after thorough investigations, legal scrutiny
and in addition to full compliance of the above-mentioned
Government Orders regarding other relevant proceedings,
as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules 2011, it should also be
ensured to maintain a register for entry of the resolutions
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 35 of 38

of the Joint Meetings of the District Magistrate/the Police
Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police. In addition to the above,
the Police Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of Police
/Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate and
Nodal Officer, while appending their signatures on the
gang-chart shall also ensure to mention the date below
their signatures.
(10) It should be shown to the satisfaction of the
competent authorities that they have applied their mind
not only on the gang chart but also on the
documents/papers attached with the gang-chart.
xxx
(13) Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 2021 provides for the
forwarding of gang charts by the Additional
Superintendent of Police. Therefore, as per rules, under
Rule 16(1) of the Rules, the Additional Superintendent of
Police (Nodal Officer) should record his satisfaction in
writing regarding the chart.
(14) As per Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 2021, the District
Police Officer, Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police, after studying the
submission of the Additional Superintendent of Police
under Rule 16(1) shall send the same to the District
Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, regarding his
satisfaction for approval of the gang chart.
(15) As per Rule 17(2) of the Rules, 2021, signatures on
gang chart pre-printed on rubber stamp are prohibited.
Accordingly, the approval shall be recorded on the gang
chart by the competent authority only after proper use of
independent mind and pre-printed rubber stamp shall not
be used.
xxx
(17) In case, the Prosecution Officer points out any
illegality/irregularity in conducting investigations or with
regard to the conclusion of the documents collected during
investigation proceedings, after getting done disposal of
the same, as the prosecution officer is satisfied that
illegality/irregularity there is no remaining, only
thereafter, the Additional Superintendent of Police shall
forward the above-said records to the Senior
Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police for
approval under Rule 20(4) of the Rules, 2021.
(18) Under Rule 26 (1) of the Rules, 2021, as the case may
be, whenever, the above-said Charge-sheet is sent before
Commissioner/Senior the Police Superintendent of
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 36 of 38

Police/Superintendent of Police, for granting the
necessary approval under Rule 20, they, unavoidably,
shall review the entire record.
(19) As per Rule 36 of the Rules, 2021, thorough
investigations should be conducted regarding movable
and immovable properties of the gang and the source of
acquisition of the same. If evidence related to the
possession over any land by the gang is required to be
collected, the Investigating Officer may collect the
evidence from the revenue records and the Revenue
Officer.
xxx
(26) District Police Incharge should carefully peruse all the
facts and evidence collected during the investigation and
only thereafter approval be given for filing of charge-
sheet/final report in the concerned Court.”
F. CONCLUSION
65. We are convinced that the continuation of Special Sessions Trial No.
54 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered at P.S. Naini,
District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh will be nothing but abuse of the process
of the law.

66. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 whereby the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the application under Section 482 of
the CrPC, preferred by the appellant for quashing of the impugned
proceedings; and rejection of the application preferred by the appellant for
quashing of non-bailable warrants vide order dated 28.02.2023 and
14.03.2023 respectively are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the criminal
proceedings arising from FIR No. 850/2018 dated 28.07.2018 registered
at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh are hereby quashed.

67. It is needless to clarify that the observations made in this judgment
are relevant only for the purpose of the subject FIR in question and the
consequential criminal proceedings. None of the observations shall have
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 37 of 38

any bearing on any of the pending criminal prosecutions or any other
proceedings.

68. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.




…………………………..J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)



…………………………..J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
New Delhi;
rd
23 May, 2025.
Crl. Appeal No. 777-778/2025 38 of 38