High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83420 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17134 of 2025 Applicant :- Shashikant Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant but at the same time, the provisions which has been dealt by Division Bench of this Court in case of Asim @ Hassim (supra) has not been disputed. 7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the rules are crystal clear at the initial stage which is mentioned under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of 2021 for holding joint meeting of the authorities concerned which includes the presenting officer, forwarding officer and thereafter the discussion shall be made with the approving authority. The rules mentioned below to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2021 although clarified the wording and the orders which ought to be passed by the approving authority but the missing of joint meeting/discussion is not necessarily to be reproduced time and again since the legislature and law makers are conscious not to repeat the procedure in each and every rules/sections in the concerned Act/Rules since the study of the sections available in the rules framed under the Act has to be read in a procedural manner where it is written in sub-sequential order and as such the provision contained under the Rule 5(3)(a) of Rules of 2021 has to be given preference while reading other rules which are mentioned below to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2021 and as such the specific provision for holding joint meeting is mandatory on the part of all the officers who are involved in forwarding the gang chart and finally it is incumbent upon the approving authority to hold meeting under Section 5(3)(a) of the Rules of 2021. The said procedure which is mandated on the part of the approving authority is missing in the instant matter. 8. Further, in the present case, the impugned FIR was registered under Section 3(1) Gangsters Act, without mentioning the corresponding provision, mentioning the anti-social activities in which the accused is involved and on the basis of which he was named as gangster. A person cannot be punished without specifying the offence committed by him which would justify his classification as a Gangster and as such in the light of judgment dated 9.4.2025 passed in case of Ravikant Verma (supra), entire proceedings arising out of approval of the gang chart which culminated into preferring the charge sheet on dated 05.12.2022 thereafter the summoning order passed by learned concerned court on dated 13.12.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of applicant herein. 9. However, the above mentioned order will not preclude the concerned authorities for re-initiation of the proceedings against applicant, if required further, in accordance with law. 10. The application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 05.12.2022 and summoning order dated 13.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Gangster Act, Jaunpur in S.S.T no. 51 of 2022 (State vs. Suraj Singh) arising out of Case Crime no. 95 of 2022 u/s 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act, PS- Jalalpur, District-Jaunpur as well as quash the entire proceeding of S.S.T. no. 51 of 2022. Superintendent Magistrate/Senior 3. Learned counsel for applicant took precise grounds for challenging the entire proceedings that there is hardly any compliance of Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which clearly demonstrate that the gang chart will not be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the Commissioner of Police/District of Police/Superintendent of Police which has already been prepared by concerned In-charge of Police Station/Station House Officer/Inspector who present it before Additional Superintendent of Police and after seeking his due recommendation the same has to present before the District Head of Police and thereafter the same was to be approved in joint meeting with the authorities who are mentioned under Rule 5 who recommended the same and thereafter at the time of approval, the same has to be jointly finally approved. The approval which is appended along with application is available at page no. 42 wherein the different dates have been mentioned by the different authorities which is strictly in terms of provision available under Rule 5 but there is hardly any compliance in respect of Rule 5(3)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant specifically submitted that there must be a joint meeting as mentioned in the Rule 5(3)(a) and the same has never been disclosed or mentioned at the time of approving the gang chart by concerned District Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that present FIR has been registered only under Section 3(1) Gangsters Act, without mentioning the corresponding section i.e. 2b, mentioning the anti-social activities in which the applicant is involved and on the basis of which he was named as gangster and charge sheet has been also submitted only under Section 3(1) Gangster Act and court concerned has also taken cognizance against the same section without mentioning the corresponding section. For substantiating his argument, learned counsel for applicant relied upon judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court on dated 2.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition no. 18729 of 2023 (Asim @ Hassim vs. State of U.P. and another).Learned counsel for applicant also submitted the co-accused of present case has already been granted relief vide order dated 9.4.2025 passed by this Court in Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 11605 of 2025 (Ravikant Verma alias Sonal vs. State of U.P. and another) and as such applicant seeks parity with the same.