Even A Single Crime Is Sufficient To Invoke Gangster Act: Allahabad High Court Upholds Proceedings Despite Challenge Based On Solitary Case

“The definition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked” — Allahabad High Court addressing the invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangster Act”) against the applicant based on a single criminal case. Dismissing the plea seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 2/3 of the Act, the Court upheld the validity of the gang chart, the charge sheet, and the cognizance order, holding that Gangster Act proceedings can be validly initiated on the basis of a solitary offence, as per Rule 22 of the U.P. Gangster Rules, 2021 and the Supreme Court's judgment in Shraddha Gupta.

The decision was delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh and reiterates a key legal position: plurality of offences is not a pre-condition for initiating prosecution under the Gangster Act.

“Gang Chart Prepared After Investigation Of Base Case – No Procedural Lapse Shown”

The High Court began its ruling by firmly rejecting the applicant’s contention that the Gangster Act could not be invoked on the basis of a single case, terming it contrary to law and settled precedent.

"Even a single crime committed by a 'Gang' is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of the 'Gang'. The definition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked," observed the Court, quoting paragraph 37 of the Supreme Court's decision in Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 514].

In the present case, the gang chart was based on Case Crime No. 406 of 2024, under Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2), 308(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The applicant had already secured bail in that matter, and argued that initiation of gangster proceedings solely on its basis was a legal infirmity. However, the Court emphasized that Rule 22(1) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 explicitly permits registration of an FIR and initiation of proceedings under the Gangster Act on the basis of a single case.

An FIR under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act was lodged against the applicant on September 23, 2024, forming Case Crime No. 502 of 2024 at P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad. Prior to this FIR, a gang chart was prepared on September 21, 2024, based on a solitary criminal case—Case Crime No. 406 of 2024—where a charge sheet had been submitted a day earlier on September 20, 2024.

Subsequently, charge sheet in the gangster case was filed on August 9, 2025, and cognizance was taken by the Special Judge on August 28, 2025.

The applicant, through counsel Ms. Mandvi Tripathi and Mr. Santosh Tripathi, challenged the gangster proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), asserting procedural violations in the preparation and approval of the gang chart and alleging non-compliance with Gangster Rules, particularly Rules 5, 8, 10, 16, and 17.

The Court framed and addressed the following legal issues:

Can the Gangster Act be invoked based on a solitary case?

Yes, ruled the Court, placing reliance on Shraddha Gupta and Rule 22(1) of the Gangster Rules:

“A single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act, and First Information Report may be registered on the basis of a single case i.e., it is not mandatory that any criminal history must be recorded and alleged before registering an offence under the Act.”

The applicant’s challenge on this ground was squarely rejected.

Whether the gang chart was prepared without completion of base case investigation?

No, held the Court. The charge sheet in the base case was prepared on September 20, 2024, and the gang chart was prepared only afterwards, on September 21, 2024. The Court held that Rule 5(3)(c), which mandates completion of investigation before gang chart approval, was fully satisfied.

“The statutory requirement that investigation must be completed prior to approval of gang chart was fully satisfied. No violation of Rule 5(3)(c) is established.”

Was the Gang Chart approved without due satisfaction and joint meeting as required under Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 16?

No, observed the Court. The gang chart was approved in a joint meeting of competent authorities, and all endorsing officials recorded handwritten satisfaction, not mere signatures on pre-typed proformas. The Court distinguished earlier decisions like Sanni Mishra, Mohd. Arif @ Guddu, and Vinod Bihari Lal.

“Authorities recorded their satisfaction in their own handwriting in a joint meeting after due discussion...the satisfaction was recorded as per Rules, 2021 and Form-I of the Gangster Act.”

Was Rule 10 violated due to absence of certified copy of the charge sheet issued by the Court?

No, clarified the Court. The copy prepared and certified by the Investigating Officer was found sufficient, in line with earlier Division Bench rulings in Ambuj Parag Dubey and Narendra Kumar.

“Rule 10 nowhere requires a certified copy issued by the court...Certification by the police officer having control over the document suffices.”

The Court also explained that Rule 60, which relates to trial stage, governs certification of the charge sheet by a police officer for evidentiary purposes. It has no bearing on gang chart preparation at pre-trial stage.

Was there any false information in the Gang Chart?

No, the applicant could not identify any specific false entry in the gang chart. The Court held that Rule 8(2) was not violated.

“No false information is mentioned in the gang chart. The applicant failed to point out any specific false entry.”

In an extensively reasoned decision spanning numerous precedents, the Court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS, akin to Section 482 CrPC. The Court emphasized that once statutory procedure has been followed, proceedings cannot be quashed on hyper-technical grounds.

“The satisfaction contemplated by the Gangster Rule is not with respect to allegations but confined to the existence of prima facie material warranting prosecution.”

The Court also reinforced the principle laid down in Ambuj Parag Dubey, where the difference between prima facie satisfaction and evaluation of evidence was emphasized.

Holding that none of the procedural requirements under the Gangster Rules, 2021 were violated, and the statutory mandate was followed in letter and spirit, the High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 528 BNSS.

“From the discussion made hereinabove, I, therefore, find that the present application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.”

Date of Decision: February 5, 2026