Baijnath Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122194

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27699 of 2024

Applicant :- Baijnath Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 21.03.2024 as well as impugned cognizance order dated 05.04.2024 including the entire proceedings of Session Trial no. 547 of 2024 (State vs. Pramod Yadav) arising out of Case Crime no. 379 of 2022, under Section 3(1), 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi), 2(b)(xv) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Basgaon, District Gorakhpur pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge 3rd/Gangster Act, Gorakhpur as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants took precise grounds for challenging the entire proceedings that there is hardly any compliance of Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which clearly demonstrate that the gang chart will not be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police which has already been prepared by concerned In-charge of Police Station/Station House Officer/Inspector who present it before Additional Superintendent of Police and after seeking his due recommendation the same has to present before the District Head of Police and thereafter the same was to be approved in joint meeting with the authorities who are mentioned under Rule 5 who recommended the same and thereafter at the time of approval, the same has to be jointly finally approved. The approval which is appended along with application as Annexture no. 3 at page nos. 35 and 36 wherein there is hardly any description in respect of dates which are not apparent over the signatures made by the forwarding authorities and as such there is

¶9

gross violation of procedure as defined under Rule 5(3)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants specifically submitted that there must be a joint meeting as mentioned in the Rule 5(3)(a) and the same has never been disclosed or mentioned at the time of approving the gang chart by concerned District Magistrate.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicants by way of taking reliance of Rule 16(2) of Rules of 2021 wherein there is hardly any mention of joint meeting which shall be conducted at the time of approving gang chart by concerned Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate.

¶12

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the rules are crystal clear at the initial stage which is mentioned under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of 2021 for holding joint meeting of the authorities concerned which includes the presenting officer, forwarding officer and thereafter the discussion shall be made with the approving authority. The rules mentioned below to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2021 although clarified the wording and the orders which ought to be passed by the approving authority but the missing of joint meeting/discussion is not necessarily to be reproduced time and again since the legislature and law makers are conscious not to repeat the procedure in each and every rules/sections in the concerned Act/Rules since the study of the sections available in the rules framed under the Act has to be read in a procedural manner where it is written in sub-sequential order and as such the provision contained under the Rule 5(3)(a) of Rules of 2021 has to be given preference while reading other rules which are mentioned below to Rule 5 of the Rules of 2021 and as such the specific provision for holding joint meeting is mandatory on the part of all the officers who are involved in forwarding the gang chart and finally it is incumbent upon the approving authority to hold meeting under Section 5(3)(a) of the Rules of 2021. The said procedure which is mandated on the part of the approving authority is missing in the instant matter and as such entire proceedings arising out of approval of the gang chart which culminated into preferring the charge sheet dated 21.03.2024 thereafter the order passed by learned concerned court by way of passing cognizance order dated 05.04.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶13

However, the above mentioned order will not preclude the

¶14

concerned authorities for re-initiation of the proceedings against applicants, if required in future, in accordance with law.

¶15

The application stands allowed accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 #Vik/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baijnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baijnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rinki and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Ishika Khanna and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Karuna and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Nitu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akanksha Minor and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shankar Lal vs State of Up and 3 Others