Omprakash And Another v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home Lko. And Others

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Instant criminal writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 30.06.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 133 of 2025, Under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station- Mahesh Ganj District- Pratapganj. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2& 3 not to harass and arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 30.06.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 133 of 2025, Under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station- Mahesh Ganj District- Pratapgarh (Annexure No. 1).

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the gang chart which merits to be quashed on the grounds that (a) the gang chart only indicates about one case and a Division Bench of this court in the case of Mehndi Hasan Vs. State of U.P and 2 Ors Neutral Citiation:- 2 CRLP No. 10491 of 2025 2025:AHC:173167 DB has held that a person cannot be implicated under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1986") on the basis of single base case and (b) the gang chart has been prepared in violation of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (In short "Rules, 2021").

4. Elaborating the same, argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the Division Bench of this Court in the case Mehndi Hasan (supra) has categorically held that the Act, 1986 cannot be invoked where there is only case against a person as such, the respondents have patently erred in law in lodging the First Information Report on the basis of one case.

5. Further argument is that in terms of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules, 2021, the gang chart has been approved summarily by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police without any application of mind and without holding a joint meeting.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA has supported the First Information Report on the ground that the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of U.P and Ors- (2022) 19 SCC 657 has held that even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the ‘Gang’.

7. Learned AGA has further argued that the Rules, 2021 have been strictly followed while approving the gang chart.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records.

9. From the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of records it emerges that the petitioners are aggrieved by the First Information Report dated 30.06.2025 as lodged against the them under the provisions of the Act, 1986.

10. The grounds raising a challenge to the said First Information Report have already been enumerated above. 3 CRLP No. 10491 of 2025

11. So far as ground (a) is concerned, the same pertains to the argument that the First Information Report cannot be lodged on the basis of one case as indicated in the gang chart.

12. Suffice it to say that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "25....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. Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2 (b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is 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."

13. Thus, it is apparent that keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharaddha Gupta (supra) the provisions of the Act, 1986 can be invoked even on the basis of a single case.

14. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mehndi Hasan (supra) per which it has been indicated that the Act, 1986 cannot be invoked on the basis of a single base case, the same cannot be considered to be a good law keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) as well as the fact that the said judgment has been passed without considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra). 4 CRLP No. 10491 of 2025

15. So far as the ground of non compliance of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules, 2021 is concerned, a perusal of said rule indicates that the gang chart is not to be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the Commissioner of Police/ District Magistrate/ Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police.

16. A perusal of the gang chart would indicate that a joint meeting has in fact been held both by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police on 29.06.2025. The Superintendent of Police has, however, not mentioned the year while holding the joint meeting but obviously once the case relates to the year 2025 as such, it cannot be that a futuristic day may have been indicated by the Superintendent of Police or any previous year would have been indicated by the Superintendent of Police. Thus, mere absence of the year as indicated under the signature of the Superintendent of Police would not vitiate the joint meeting more particularly when the dates are the same.

17. Even otherwise, a perusal of the said minutes of the meeting would indicate that both the authorities have considered the gang chart and documents and thereafter have arrived at a conclusion that sufficient material exists for invocation of the Act, 1986 against the petitioners.

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 10, 2025 Pachhere/- (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Instant criminal writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 30.06.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 133 of 2025, Under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station- Mahesh Ganj District- Pratapganj. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2& 3 not to harass and arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 30.06.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 133 of 2025, Under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station- Mahesh Ganj District- Pratapgarh (Annexure No. 1).

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the gang chart which merits to be quashed on the grounds that (a) the gang chart only indicates about one case and a Division Bench of this court in the case of Mehndi Hasan Vs. State of U.P and 2 Ors Neutral Citiation:- 2 CRLP No. 10491 of 2025 2025:AHC:173167 DB has held that a person cannot be implicated under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1986") on the basis of single base case and (b) the gang chart has been prepared in violation of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (In short "Rules, 2021").

4. Elaborating the same, argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the Division Bench of this Court in the case Mehndi Hasan (supra) has categorically held that the Act, 1986 cannot be invoked where there is only case against a person as such, the respondents have patently erred in law in lodging the First Information Report on the basis of one case.

5. Further argument is that in terms of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules, 2021, the gang chart has been approved summarily by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police without any application of mind and without holding a joint meeting.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA has supported the First Information Report on the ground that the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of U.P and Ors- (2022) 19 SCC 657 has held that even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the ‘Gang’.

7. Learned AGA has further argued that the Rules, 2021 have been strictly followed while approving the gang chart.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records.

9. From the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of records it emerges that the petitioners are aggrieved by the First Information Report dated 30.06.2025 as lodged against the them under the provisions of the Act, 1986.

10. The grounds raising a challenge to the said First Information Report have already been enumerated above. 3 CRLP No. 10491 of 2025

11. So far as ground (a) is concerned, the same pertains to the argument that the First Information Report cannot be lodged on the basis of one case as indicated in the gang chart.

12. Suffice it to say that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "25....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. Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2 (b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is 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."

13. Thus, it is apparent that keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sharaddha Gupta (supra) the provisions of the Act, 1986 can be invoked even on the basis of a single case.

14. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mehndi Hasan (supra) per which it has been indicated that the Act, 1986 cannot be invoked on the basis of a single base case, the same cannot be considered to be a good law keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) as well as the fact that the said judgment has been passed without considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra). 4 CRLP No. 10491 of 2025

15. So far as the ground of non compliance of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules, 2021 is concerned, a perusal of said rule indicates that the gang chart is not to be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the Commissioner of Police/ District Magistrate/ Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police.

16. A perusal of the gang chart would indicate that a joint meeting has in fact been held both by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police on 29.06.2025. The Superintendent of Police has, however, not mentioned the year while holding the joint meeting but obviously once the case relates to the year 2025 as such, it cannot be that a futuristic day may have been indicated by the Superintendent of Police or any previous year would have been indicated by the Superintendent of Police. Thus, mere absence of the year as indicated under the signature of the Superintendent of Police would not vitiate the joint meeting more particularly when the dates are the same.

17. Even otherwise, a perusal of the said minutes of the meeting would indicate that both the authorities have considered the gang chart and documents and thereafter have arrived at a conclusion that sufficient material exists for invocation of the Act, 1986 against the petitioners.

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 10, 2025 Pachhere/- (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench