Gangster Law Can’t Run on Rubber Stamps: Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR, Gang-Chart for Violation of Rules

Due Discussion Not a Paper Ritual”—No Joint Meeting, No Independent Application of Mind, FIR Under Gangster Act Quashed - Allahabad High Court quashing the First Information Report dated 22.11.2023 filed under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

A Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Madan Pal Singh held that no “due discussion” or joint meeting as mandated under Rule 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Gangsters Rules, 2021 had taken place, and authorities failed to independently apply their minds, rendering the entire action unlawful. The FIR, gang-chart, and charge sheet were all quashed.

From Conspiracy Allegation to Gangster Tag—Without Procedural Backbone

The FIR stemmed from a murder incident dated 10 August 2023, where one Anuj Chaudhari was killed, and the petitioner Kamalveer Singh was later implicated under Section 120-B IPC for a conspiratorial role. While he was already in judicial custody since 01.11.2023, a separate FIR was filed against him under the Gangster Act on 22.11.2023, followed by his preventive detention under the National Security Act on 03.12.2023.

The challenge before the Court was to the FIR, the gang-chart, and all subsequent proceedings, including the charge-sheet.

“Due Discussion Must Be Real, Not Rubber-Stamped” – Court Finds Mandatory Joint Meeting Never Occurred

The heart of the High Court’s ruling lies in the finding that Rule 5(3)(a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021 was violated. The Court stressed:

“A ‘due discussion’ ought to have preceded the preparation of the gang-chart... The alleged gangster in the instant case was already a criminal in other offences and facing trial... Before branding someone as gangster, the law demands application of mind and full procedural compliance.” [Para 19]

The Court noted the absence of any dated signatures, contradictory approval timelines, and no evidence that a joint meeting between the District Magistrate, SSP, and others ever occurred. The phrase “due discussion,” the Court reiterated, was not an “empty formality” but a deliberative requirement akin to “a full-fledged exchange of views” [Para 6].

“Pre-printed Seals Aren’t Mindful Decisions”—Authorities Failed to Apply Independent Judgment

The Court strongly criticized the mechanical approval process, finding that the use of pre-typed forms and vague assertions in the counter affidavit indicated no independent application of mind, violating Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules.

“Despite Rule 17 clearly stating that the competent authority shall exercise its own independent mind, we find no such application in this case... The approval of the gang-chart appears to be nothing but a rubber-stamp formality.” [Para 20]

“False Claim of Absconding Is Mala Fide”—Petitioner Was in Jail When FIR Was Filed

In an extraordinary finding, the Court noted that while the petitioner was in judicial custody since 01.11.2023, the State falsely claimed in paragraph 28 of its counter affidavit that the petitioner was “absconding” and not cooperating.

“The petitioner was in jail since 01.11.2023… For the respondents to say that he was absconding and not cooperating is a blasphemy.” [Para 11]

The Court viewed this as indicative of mala fide intent and abuse of power, adding serious weight to its decision to quash the FIR.

“Victim in Base IPC Case Not a Victim Under Gangster Act”—No Locus Standi to Oppose Quashing

Responding to arguments made by counsel for the victim in the base murder case, the Court clarified that victims in predicate IPC cases have no standing in Gangster Act proceedings:

“A victim in the base case is not a victim under the Gangster Act... The complainant in the Gangster FIR is the State, not the individual.” [Para 15]

The Court relied on precedents including Shahab @ Shahabuddin v. State of U.P. and Pappu @ Dhani Ram v. State of U.P. to assert that the legal definition of ‘victim’ does not extend to Gangster FIRs, thereby limiting the role of private parties in such writ challenges.

“Loose Allegations of Theft Can’t Justify Gangster FIR”—Court Demands Evidentiary Standard

The FIR alleged that the petitioner was part of a gang involved in “theft and other activities” without elaboration or credible evidence. The Court found these allegations vague and insufficient:

“A bald allegation like this… is an arbitrary act on the part of the police.” [Para 9]

Citing Jay Kishan v. State of U.P. (2025) and Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), the Court emphasized that serious allegations must be supported by material evidence, and not be based on presumptive or exaggerated narratives.

FIR, Gang-Chart, and Charge-Sheet Quashed in Totality

In a clear rebuke of arbitrary police actions and procedural negligence, the High Court concluded:

“We find that absolutely no ‘due discussion’ had taken place... The first information report had been lodged in the most casual manner. All this definitely goes to show that the petitioner was being falsely implicated.” [Para 20]

The Court allowed the writ petition in full, quashing:

• FIR dated 22.11.2023 in Case Crime No. 861 of 2023 under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act

• The gang-chart used to initiate the FIR

• The charge-sheet arising from the FIR

“Since the gang-chart was prepared without any due discussion and without any application of mind, it deserves to be quashed... The writ petition stands allowed.” [Para 22]

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025