High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State Respondents.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, dated 03.06.2025, under section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties not to proceed, prosecute or arrest the Petitioner on the basis of the impugned First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, dated 03.06.2025, under section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this Writ petition."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main ground for challenge of such gang chart is the violation of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2021. It appears from the gang chart that no application of independent mind of Superintendent of Police, Balrampur Or that of the District Magistrate has occurred and it has been merely stated a unanimous decision has been taken in a joint meeting of the Superintendent of Police with the District Magistrate. The illustrative words as given under Rule 16 of the Rules have been merely translated in Hindi and no document on which the authorities have relied finds mention nor is there any independent application of mind to the approval of the gang chart.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the Case of Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine 1216 has held that satisfaction recorded by the Approving Authority under the Gangster Act is to be done after application of independent mind and the approval recorded should not be cyclostyled reproduction of the words given in the Rules or of the communication made by the Recommending Authority.

5. It has also been pointed out from the gang chart that has been filed as annexure to the petition that the District Magistrate has relied upon the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur and also on the legal opinion of the Joint Director, Prosecution while approving the gang chart on 02.06.2025.

6. It has also been stated that no joint meeting was held as the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur has signed the gang chart on 20.05.2025 and the District Magistrate, Balrampur has signed the same on 02.06.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the coordinate Division Bench in the case of Shahbaj Alam Khan Vs. State of U.P. on 15.05.2024 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88390-DB where in a similar case the Division Bench had interfered in the matter.

8. We have gone through the judgement rendered by the coordinate Division Bench and we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the said judgement/order:- "This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 29.1.2024 in case crime no. 79 of 2024 under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act P.S. Karvi Kotwali Nagar District, Chitrakoot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the gang chart the commissioner of police ,Chitrakoot has recorded his satisfaction that he has perused the gang chart and supporting evidence and has received the opinion of the legal expert. He finds sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and forwarded the same alongwith his recommendation. The District Magistrate, Chitrakoot has recorded the finding that he is recommending the gang chat as per legal opinion of special prosecution officer, report of Additional Police Superintendent and report of Circle Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court in the case of Sanni Mishra alias Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024, (1) ALJ, 642 has held in paragraphs 13,14,15,16,and 17 that while forwarding the gangchart competent authorities must apply their independent mind to the information mentioned in the gang chart as well as annexures annexed therewith. For ready reference the aforesaid paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "13. So far as the second contention of the petitioner is concerned regarding non-application of mind by the competent authorities while forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the same is liable to be considered in the light of the mandate of Rules 16 and 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021. Rule 16(1) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 mentions that while forwarding the gang-chart by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Nodal Officer), he must record his satisfaction in clear words after perusal of gang-chart as well as attached forms, in the words mentioned in Rule 16(1) itself before forwarding the same to District Police Chief. Rule 16(1) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as under: "16.(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 Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 exists. Accordingly recommendation." forwarded

14. Similarly, Rule 16(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further mandates the District Police Chief to record his satisfaction that all the formalities of the Gangster Act, 1986 have been fulfilled as well as all the particulars mentioned in gang-chart are correct and there is a satisfactory basis for taking action, only then he will forward the gang-chart. Rule 16(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as below:

16.(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."

15. Similarly, Rule 16(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides that the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, after receiving the gang-chart from the District Police Chief, will again peruse the record and he will record his satisfaction that satisfactory ground exists for taking action under the Gangster Act, 1986 before approving the same. Rule 16(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as under: "16(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: "I duly peruse 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."

16. Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides that competent authorities, before forwarding the gang-chart must apply an independent mind to the information mentioned in the gang-chart as well as evidence annexed therewith. Rule 17(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides that pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart should not be signed by the competent authorities because the same shall amount to not exercising independent mind. Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as under: "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."

17. The purpose of prohibiting the signing of pre-printed rubber seal under Rule 17(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is to bind the competent authorities to apply independent mind by mentioning their satisfaction in clear words. Therefore, signing the pre-typed satisfaction will also be prohibited under Rule 17(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021. " Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as stated above Superintendent of police , Chitrakoot and District Magistrate, Chitrakoot have not recorded their satisfaction but have relied upon the reports and opinion submitted by different authorities, and therefore, impugned First Information Report deserves to be quashed. Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the joint meeting report dated 25.1.2024 wherein it has been mentined that Abbas Ansari son of Mukhtar Ansari, who has been transferred from Prayagraj jail has formed gang alongwith his old criminal friends for the purpose of financial, physical and materials benefits. He is involved in committing offence of extortion due to which common people are fearful and case crime no.88/2023 under sections 387/ 222/ 186/ 506/ 201/ 120-B/ 195- A/34 I.P.C. and section 7, 8/13 of P.C. Act and section 42-B and 54 of Prisoners Act and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment, Act has been registered and charge sheet has been submitted. He has submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid joint meeting that Superintendent of Police Chitrakoot and District Magistrate, Chitrakoot have held joint meeting and after discussion they have decided that liberty of the gang is hazardous for public, therefore they have approved the gangchart. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that finding in the gangchart recorded by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot and Superintend of Police, Chitrakoot that they are recommending the gangchart on the basis of legal advice and report of the certain authorities does not finds mention in the joint meeting of the same date i.e, 25.1.2024. This court in the case of Rajeev Agarwal and another vs. State of U.P. and another , 2023 Legal Eagle (ALD) 751 had occasion to discuss the requirement of recording satisfaction of Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, in the joint meeting. This court may usefully refer to paragraphs 17,25,26 of the aforesaid judgement quoted herein below-: "17. Thus from perusal of the Rules, all that is required by Rules is that the Authorities recommending registration of a case under the Act of 1986 should come to the conclusion with an independent application of mind that a case under the Act of 1986 ought to be registered. Likewise, the Authorities approving the gang-chart should also come to the conclusion on an independent application of mind that a case under the Act of 1986 ought to be registered against the accused on the basis of the activities of the gang. However there is no prescription for the employment of particular words to serve as index of due application of mind.

25. The procedural compliance in cases of gangster Act is of utmost importance, departure from the due process of law will give chance and provide fodder to the vested interests with singular agenda to spread false narratives. Verily, gangsterism poses an ominious threat to public order. Vile and abhorrent acts of gangsterism do evoke collective societal anger and anguish. While the war against gangsterism must be waged by the State with unwavering resolve but a civil democratic society can ill afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided, and which is an integrated facet of the due process of law, at the altar of perceived peril to public order. "The Siren Song that the 'end justifies the means', and that the procedural safeguards are subdervient to the overwhelming need to ensure that the accused is prosecuted and punished, must be muzzled by voice of Rule of Law."

26. For all the reasons recorded above, the court is of the view that at the stage of preparing and approving the gang-chart on the basis of materials placed, the competent Authorities should have satisfied themselves that there is a legal basis and justifiction for taking and persuing action against the accused under the Act of 1986. At the stage of approval of the gang-chart, the approving Authority has to be satisfied that a case for action under the Act of 1986 is made out and that satisfaction should be reflected from the gang chart and other records. But in this case, the competent authorities, unhesitatingly just paid lip service to the legislative mandate and unfortunately had undertaken the whole exercise of preparation and approval of the gang chart as a ritualistic formality without due application of mind." After considering overall facts and circumstances and material on record, this court finds that the findings recorded in the joint meeting on 25.1.2024 and the findings recorded while granting approval of the gangchart by the Superintendent of Police, Chitrkoot and District Magistrate, Chitrakoot are at variance and it shows that mere formality has been observed while holding joint meeting and approving gang chart. In view of the above, impugned First Information Report is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. It is open for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner,if required , after following due procedure of law."

9. In light of the observations made by the coordinate Division Bench, we have perused the Rules and also the manner of approval of the gang chart as recorded by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate has observed as follows:- कक सससतततत, JD(P) "SP, Balrampur तवधधक अतभमत एवस पततवलल पर उपलबध सतकयय कत अवललकन तकयत गयत धजसकक आधतर पर गगग चतरर अनतमलदन कत पयतरप आधतर पतलत हलतत हह। अतत आज 2/6/25 कक सतथ ससयतक बहठक मम गगग चतरर अनतमलतदत तकयत जततत हह" कल SP कक

10. It is evident from the note made by the District Magistrate, Balrampur while granting approval to the gang chart that he has considered three things firstly, the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur(the Recommending Authority), secondly, the legal opinion of the Joint Direction, Prosecution, and thirdly, the evidence made available on the file on which approval was sought by the Recommending Authority.

11. It has also been mentioned in the said noting made by the District Magistrate, Balrampur that a joint meeting of the District Magistrate, Balrampur with the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur was held on 02.06.2025.

12. It is evident that the District Magistrate, Balrampur has meticulously recorded the material on which he has relied upon to grant the approval, it not only include the legal opinion, but also includes his own view on the file include the evidence that the has been calculated by the Police regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the gang, which is allegedly actively involved in forest crimes.

13. It is clear from the noting also to this Court that the District Magistrate has applied his independent mind while coming to the conclusion that the matter is a fit one for grant of approval of initiation of proceedings under the Gangster Act.

14. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate could not have mentioned the legal opinion given by the Joint Director, Prosecution as it vitiates the approval and shows that his mind was not applied independently.

15. We are not convinced with such argument as it is evident that the District Magistrate has meticulously recorded the material that was placed before him, including the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur and the Joint Director, Prosecution and the evidence placed before him by the Recommending Authority and then the District Magistrate has given his approval.

16. Moreover, we are also of the considered opinion that the Rules do not mention anywhere that the District Magistrate shall not consult the Joint Director, Prosecution and shall not seek his legal opinion that it is not prohibited specifically is permitted. The legal basis of initiating proceedings under the Gangster Act can best be hold by the Joint Director, Prosecution, and therefore, his opinion was also considered by the District Magistrate while going through the evidence placed before him on the file.

17. We do not find any good ground to show interference in the F.I.R.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State Respondents.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, dated 03.06.2025, under section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties not to proceed, prosecute or arrest the Petitioner on the basis of the impugned First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, dated 03.06.2025, under section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this Writ petition."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main ground for challenge of such gang chart is the violation of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2021. It appears from the gang chart that no application of independent mind of Superintendent of Police, Balrampur Or that of the District Magistrate has occurred and it has been merely stated a unanimous decision has been taken in a joint meeting of the Superintendent of Police with the District Magistrate. The illustrative words as given under Rule 16 of the Rules have been merely translated in Hindi and no document on which the authorities have relied finds mention nor is there any independent application of mind to the approval of the gang chart.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the Case of Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine 1216 has held that satisfaction recorded by the Approving Authority under the Gangster Act is to be done after application of independent mind and the approval recorded should not be cyclostyled reproduction of the words given in the Rules or of the communication made by the Recommending Authority.

5. It has also been pointed out from the gang chart that has been filed as annexure to the petition that the District Magistrate has relied upon the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur and also on the legal opinion of the Joint Director, Prosecution while approving the gang chart on 02.06.2025.

6. It has also been stated that no joint meeting was held as the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur has signed the gang chart on 20.05.2025 and the District Magistrate, Balrampur has signed the same on 02.06.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the coordinate Division Bench in the case of Shahbaj Alam Khan Vs. State of U.P. on 15.05.2024 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88390-DB where in a similar case the Division Bench had interfered in the matter.

8. We have gone through the judgement rendered by the coordinate Division Bench and we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of the said judgement/order:- "This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 29.1.2024 in case crime no. 79 of 2024 under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act P.S. Karvi Kotwali Nagar District, Chitrakoot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the gang chart the commissioner of police ,Chitrakoot has recorded his satisfaction that he has perused the gang chart and supporting evidence and has received the opinion of the legal expert. He finds sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and forwarded the same alongwith his recommendation. The District Magistrate, Chitrakoot has recorded the finding that he is recommending the gang chat as per legal opinion of special prosecution officer, report of Additional Police Superintendent and report of Circle Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court in the case of Sanni Mishra alias Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024, (1) ALJ, 642 has held in paragraphs 13,14,15,16,and 17 that while forwarding the gangchart competent authorities must apply their independent mind to the information mentioned in the gang chart as well as annexures annexed therewith. For ready reference the aforesaid paragraphs are quoted herein below:- "13. So far as the second contention of the petitioner is concerned regarding non-application of mind by the competent authorities while forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the same is liable to be considered in the light of the mandate of Rules 16 and 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021. Rule 16(1) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 mentions that while forwarding the gang-chart by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Nodal Officer), he must record his satisfaction in clear words after perusal of gang-chart as well as attached forms, in the words mentioned in Rule 16(1) itself before forwarding the same to District Police Chief. Rule 16(1) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as under: "16.(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 Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 exists. Accordingly recommendation." forwarded

14. Similarly, Rule 16(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further mandates the District Police Chief to record his satisfaction that all the formalities of the Gangster Act, 1986 have been fulfilled as well as all the particulars mentioned in gang-chart are correct and there is a satisfactory basis for taking action, only then he will forward the gang-chart. Rule 16(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as below:

16.(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."

15. Similarly, Rule 16(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides that the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, after receiving the gang-chart from the District Police Chief, will again peruse the record and he will record his satisfaction that satisfactory ground exists for taking action under the Gangster Act, 1986 before approving the same. Rule 16(3) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as under: "16(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: "I duly peruse 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."

16. Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides that competent authorities, before forwarding the gang-chart must apply an independent mind to the information mentioned in the gang-chart as well as evidence annexed therewith. Rule 17(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 further provides that pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart should not be signed by the competent authorities because the same shall amount to not exercising independent mind. Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is being quoted as under: "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."

17. The purpose of prohibiting the signing of pre-printed rubber seal under Rule 17(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 is to bind the competent authorities to apply independent mind by mentioning their satisfaction in clear words. Therefore, signing the pre-typed satisfaction will also be prohibited under Rule 17(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021. " Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as stated above Superintendent of police , Chitrakoot and District Magistrate, Chitrakoot have not recorded their satisfaction but have relied upon the reports and opinion submitted by different authorities, and therefore, impugned First Information Report deserves to be quashed. Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the joint meeting report dated 25.1.2024 wherein it has been mentined that Abbas Ansari son of Mukhtar Ansari, who has been transferred from Prayagraj jail has formed gang alongwith his old criminal friends for the purpose of financial, physical and materials benefits. He is involved in committing offence of extortion due to which common people are fearful and case crime no.88/2023 under sections 387/ 222/ 186/ 506/ 201/ 120-B/ 195- A/34 I.P.C. and section 7, 8/13 of P.C. Act and section 42-B and 54 of Prisoners Act and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment, Act has been registered and charge sheet has been submitted. He has submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid joint meeting that Superintendent of Police Chitrakoot and District Magistrate, Chitrakoot have held joint meeting and after discussion they have decided that liberty of the gang is hazardous for public, therefore they have approved the gangchart. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that finding in the gangchart recorded by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot and Superintend of Police, Chitrakoot that they are recommending the gangchart on the basis of legal advice and report of the certain authorities does not finds mention in the joint meeting of the same date i.e, 25.1.2024. This court in the case of Rajeev Agarwal and another vs. State of U.P. and another , 2023 Legal Eagle (ALD) 751 had occasion to discuss the requirement of recording satisfaction of Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, in the joint meeting. This court may usefully refer to paragraphs 17,25,26 of the aforesaid judgement quoted herein below-: "17. Thus from perusal of the Rules, all that is required by Rules is that the Authorities recommending registration of a case under the Act of 1986 should come to the conclusion with an independent application of mind that a case under the Act of 1986 ought to be registered. Likewise, the Authorities approving the gang-chart should also come to the conclusion on an independent application of mind that a case under the Act of 1986 ought to be registered against the accused on the basis of the activities of the gang. However there is no prescription for the employment of particular words to serve as index of due application of mind.

25. The procedural compliance in cases of gangster Act is of utmost importance, departure from the due process of law will give chance and provide fodder to the vested interests with singular agenda to spread false narratives. Verily, gangsterism poses an ominious threat to public order. Vile and abhorrent acts of gangsterism do evoke collective societal anger and anguish. While the war against gangsterism must be waged by the State with unwavering resolve but a civil democratic society can ill afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided, and which is an integrated facet of the due process of law, at the altar of perceived peril to public order. "The Siren Song that the 'end justifies the means', and that the procedural safeguards are subdervient to the overwhelming need to ensure that the accused is prosecuted and punished, must be muzzled by voice of Rule of Law."

26. For all the reasons recorded above, the court is of the view that at the stage of preparing and approving the gang-chart on the basis of materials placed, the competent Authorities should have satisfied themselves that there is a legal basis and justifiction for taking and persuing action against the accused under the Act of 1986. At the stage of approval of the gang-chart, the approving Authority has to be satisfied that a case for action under the Act of 1986 is made out and that satisfaction should be reflected from the gang chart and other records. But in this case, the competent authorities, unhesitatingly just paid lip service to the legislative mandate and unfortunately had undertaken the whole exercise of preparation and approval of the gang chart as a ritualistic formality without due application of mind." After considering overall facts and circumstances and material on record, this court finds that the findings recorded in the joint meeting on 25.1.2024 and the findings recorded while granting approval of the gangchart by the Superintendent of Police, Chitrkoot and District Magistrate, Chitrakoot are at variance and it shows that mere formality has been observed while holding joint meeting and approving gang chart. In view of the above, impugned First Information Report is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. It is open for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner,if required , after following due procedure of law."

9. In light of the observations made by the coordinate Division Bench, we have perused the Rules and also the manner of approval of the gang chart as recorded by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate has observed as follows:- कक सससतततत, JD(P) "SP, Balrampur तवधधक अतभमत एवस पततवलल पर उपलबध सतकयय कत अवललकन तकयत गयत धजसकक आधतर पर गगग चतरर अनतमलदन कत पयतरप आधतर पतलत हलतत हह। अतत आज 2/6/25 कक सतथ ससयतक बहठक मम गगग चतरर अनतमलतदत तकयत जततत हह" कल SP कक

10. It is evident from the note made by the District Magistrate, Balrampur while granting approval to the gang chart that he has considered three things firstly, the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur(the Recommending Authority), secondly, the legal opinion of the Joint Direction, Prosecution, and thirdly, the evidence made available on the file on which approval was sought by the Recommending Authority.

11. It has also been mentioned in the said noting made by the District Magistrate, Balrampur that a joint meeting of the District Magistrate, Balrampur with the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur was held on 02.06.2025.

12. It is evident that the District Magistrate, Balrampur has meticulously recorded the material on which he has relied upon to grant the approval, it not only include the legal opinion, but also includes his own view on the file include the evidence that the has been calculated by the Police regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the gang, which is allegedly actively involved in forest crimes.

13. It is clear from the noting also to this Court that the District Magistrate has applied his independent mind while coming to the conclusion that the matter is a fit one for grant of approval of initiation of proceedings under the Gangster Act.

14. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate could not have mentioned the legal opinion given by the Joint Director, Prosecution as it vitiates the approval and shows that his mind was not applied independently.

15. We are not convinced with such argument as it is evident that the District Magistrate has meticulously recorded the material that was placed before him, including the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur and the Joint Director, Prosecution and the evidence placed before him by the Recommending Authority and then the District Magistrate has given his approval.

16. Moreover, we are also of the considered opinion that the Rules do not mention anywhere that the District Magistrate shall not consult the Joint Director, Prosecution and shall not seek his legal opinion that it is not prohibited specifically is permitted. The legal basis of initiating proceedings under the Gangster Act can best be hold by the Joint Director, Prosecution, and therefore, his opinion was also considered by the District Magistrate while going through the evidence placed before him on the file.

17. We do not find any good ground to show interference in the F.I.R.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Darpan Sharma DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench