Background:

The present case arose in connection with the August 2023 murder of Anuj Chaudhari, Kamal veer Singh was later implicated for conspiracy and booked under the IPC, Arms Act, UP Gangster Act, and the National Security Act- despite already being in custody. He challenged the proceedings in the Allahabad High Court, which found that mandatory procedural safeguards, particularly under Rule 5(3)(a) of the UP-Gangster Rules, 2021, were ignored. The Court ruled the actions arbitrary and mechanical, and consequently quashed the FIR and chargesheet, citing misuse of stringent legal provisions.

Issues

• Did the authorities violate Rule 5(3)(a) of the UP-Gangster Rules, 2021 by failing to hold a “due discussion” (i.e., a joint meeting) between the District Magistrate, SSP, Nodal Officer, etc., before preparing and approving the gang-chart?

• Was the gang-chart and consequent FIR under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act, 1986 legally valid when authorities relied on pre‑typed satisfaction notes without recording dates or independent reasoning, thereby flouting Rules 16 and 17 (and Rule 5)?

• Can allegations of “uncategorized crimes” like “theft” (without specifying factual particulars or evidence) justify branding someone as a gangster under the Gangsters Act, or must there be particularized, credible material linking the accused to serious, organized wrongdoing?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The Court noted there was no joint deliberation among the District Magistrate, SSP, and Nodal Officer before approving the gang-chart- such a “rubber‑stamp” approach undermines the mandated procedure.
• • Use of standard, blank satisfaction templates without independent reasoning showed a lack of substantive evaluation, rendering the gang‑chart approval invalid.
• • The FIR’s broad references to “theft and other activities” without concrete evidence fell short of the evidence standard needed to invoke Sections 2(b) and 3(1) of the Act.
• • The Court analysed underlying transactions and held they bore more of a civil character, not the type of organized criminal conduct that warrants application of the Gangster Act.
• • Noting the pattern of repeated FIRs and the use of stringent legislation, the Court flagged this as potential abuse of process and judicially looked "behind the veil".

Decision:

The Allahabad High Court quashed:

• • The FIR dated 22 November 2023 registered under Section 3(1) of the UP-Gangster Act (Case Crime No. 861 of 2023),
• • The gang-chart, and
• • The resulting charge-sheet filed thereafter.

The court concluded that, under the circumstances and due to the procedural lapses, Kamal veer’s FIR and charge-sheet under the Gangster Act had to be set aside.

Why this case matters:

• • Reinforces genuine deliberation, not rubber‑stamp actions.
• • This case also sends a clear signal that preventive laws won’t stand on flimsy or arbitrary grounds.
• • This case aligns with judicial trends- like in Abdul Lateef and Supreme Court rulings, highlighting systemic misuse of the Gangsters Act against individuals for minor offences or political reasons. Courts have repeatedly admonished authorities for treating the Act as a tool for harassment rather than serious crime control.
• • Following such judgments, courts have often ordered government action- like mandating training of police and district officials on proper application of the Act, and reinforcing procedural compliance.

Laws related thereto:

Under UP Gangster Act, 1986 & Rules, 2021:

• Rule 5 – Preparation & Approval of Gang-Charts

• o Rule 5(1): The SHO must prepare a detailed gang-chart documenting alleged criminal activities.
• o Rule 5(2): The Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) recommends the chart, which must then be forwarded.
• o Rule 5(3)(a): Requires a joint meeting of the District Magistrate, SSP/DSP and Nodal Officer, followed by recorded resolutions- before approving the chart.

• Rule 16 – Satisfaction and Forwarding

• o Rule 16(1): ASP/Nodal Officer must record written satisfaction that the chart is factually and legally sound.
• o Rule 16(2): SSP/DSP must independently review and confirm all formalities before forwarding to DM/Commissioner.
• o Rule 16(3): DM/Commissioner must finally record their own satisfaction after thorough review.

Rule 17 – Independent Mind & No Rubber Stamps

• o Rule 17(1): Each authority must exercise independent mind in approving the chart.
• o Rule 17(2): Use of pre-printed or rubber-stamped wording is expressly prohibited, as it demonstrates lack of genuine consideration.

• Rule 10 – Attaching Charge-Sheet & Recovery Memo

• o Rule 10(1): Mandates attachments like FIR, recovery memo, and certified copies of charge-sheets with the gang-chart.

Judicial Precedents:

• Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. (2025): Laid down two cornerstone principles: the dual‑requirement (must prove both designated anti-social activity and public order/pecuniary motive) and the recorded‑satisfaction test (requiring independent, reasoned satisfaction under Rules 5, 16 & 17).

• Shabbir Husain & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2025): Quashed FIR and gang‑chart due to “non-application of mind” and “utter violation” of Rule 5(3)(a).

• Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan v. State of U.P. (2024): Reiterated need for joint meeting, written satisfaction avoiding typed templates, and insisted on clear documentation under Rules 5(3)(a), 16, and 17.

• Prabhat Patel v. State of U.P. (2024): Declared signing below pre‑typed pro-forma violated Rule 17(2): approval of gang‑chart must reflect genuine independent thought.