Non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedure for Gang Chart approval vitiates proceedings under the Gangsters Act.

The appellant challenged an FIR (No. 0125/2022) registered under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Bahraich

The FIR was based on a "Gang Chart" alleging the appellant's involvement in various criminal activities including land grabbing and extortion

The High Court of Allahabad declined to quash the FIR and rejected a subsequent review petition

The appellant contended that the Gang Chart used to initiate proceedings was not prepared or approved in accordance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, noting that the certified copy of the chart obtained from the court lacked required signatures and recommendations

1. Whether the Gang Chart and subsequent FIR were vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Rules of 2021.

2. Whether the absence of a recorded joint meeting between the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, as required for the approval of a Gang Chart, renders the proceedings unsustainable.

The Court applied the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, specifically Rule 5 and Rule 16, which mandate a strict hierarchy of recommendations and approvals—from the Station House Officer to the Additional Superintendent of Police, culminating in a joint meeting and approval by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police

The Court relied on the precedent Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), which emphasized that the satisfaction of the authorities must be arrived at through the prescribed joint meeting

It further applied the fundamental administrative law principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be done in that manner or not at all, especially when personal liberty is at stake

The Court observed that the certified copy of the Gang Chart transmitted to the Jurisdictional Court lacked the signatures of the Nodal Officer, the Additional Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of Police, and the District Magistrate

While the State produced a different version (Exhibit P4) that contained signatures, the Court noted that the document which actually accompanied the FIR and was sent to the court was procedurally blank

Furthermore, Rule 5(3) requires that approval be granted only after a joint meeting between the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police; the Court found no indication that such a meeting occurred

The Court rejected the State's argument that the Nodal Officer could forward an incomplete chart to the court, ruling that a document only assumes the legal status of a "Gang Chart" once the full statutory process of recommendation and approval is completed

The Court emphasized that strict procedural adherence is non-negotiable under the Act of 1986 due to its "precarious nature" and its impact on individual liberty

The Court held that the FIR was unsustainable as the accompanying Gang Chart was not prepared according to the Act of 1986 and the Rules of 2021

FIR No. 0125 of 2022 was quashed on the grounds of "glaring procedural irregularity"

However, the Court clarified that authorities are not precluded from initiating fresh action in accordance with the law, and the quashing of this FIR does not affect the ongoing proceedings of the underlying criminal cases mentioned in the Gang Chart