Niyaj vs State of U.P. and Another

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.181 of of 2024 (State Vs. Shamsher Ali and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 0001/2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P.Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PSMohabbatpur Painsa, District- Kaushambi, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Kaushambi in respect of applicant. It is also prayed to quash the charge sheet dated 16.10.2024 and summoning order dated 05.12.2024 passed in the said case.

¶12

While challenging the entire proceedings of present case along with impugned chargesheet and summoning order, learned counsel for applicant has argued that by bare perusal of the gang chart, it is apparent that the same has been approved by District Magistrate by mere putting his signature without mentioning any date which is not in consonance with the judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Appeal nos. 777-778 of 2025, decided on 23.05.202) and as such, the present application may be allowed. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the guideline no.9 mentioned in paragraph 64 of the said judgment.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but did not dispute the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant as per the judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) . It has also been apprised by learned AGA through instructions, which were called for by earlier order, there is hardly any document available with regard to minutes of meeting jointly

¶14

NA528 No. 5567 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

held between the concerned authorities.

¶17

Before arriving over any conclusion, it is apt to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for applicant, rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) :

¶18

"63. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Crl. Appeal No. 2589/2025, vide order dated 19.04.2024 directed the respondent-State to postulate necessary Crl. Appeal No. 777778/2025 34 of 38 parameters/guidelines for the purpose of invoking provisions of the Act of 1986. In compliance of the same, the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide Office Memorandum/Circular No. 4619/Chha-Pu9-2024-1867437 dated 02.12.2024 identified certain shortcomings of the existing paraphernalia and introduced certain directions to correct the same alongwith a 29- points Checklist.

¶19

64. In light of the foregoing, we direct the concerned authorities to adhere to the aforementioned guidelines and comply to the Checklist, in both letter and spirit. In view of the facts of the present case at hand, we would like to inject thrust into the Guidelines dated 02.12.024, and also subsume the following portions of the Guidelines as a part of this judgment. They read as follows:

¶20

(9) After preparing the gang chart and getting the same approved and after thorough investigations, legal scrutiny and in addition to full compliance of the above-mentioned Government Orders regarding other relevant proceedings, as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules 2011, it should also be ensured to maintain a register for entry of the resolutions of the Joint Meetings of the District Magistrate/the Police Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police. In addition to the above, the Police Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of Police /Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate and Nodal Officer, while appending their signatures on the gang-chart shall also ensure to mention the date below their signatures. (Emphasis Supplied)

¶21

Upon perusal of the Point No.9 of the Guidelines, it is apparent that present case is squarely covered with judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Vinod Bihar Lal (supra) since on perusal of gangchart, it is crystal clear that the same has been approved by District Magistrate concerned by mere putting his signature without mentioning any

¶22

NA528 No. 5567 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

date which comes under the irregularity while preparing the gang chart in compliance with the Gangster Rules which has been elaborated in the judgment of Vinod Bihar Lal (supra). Although, there is difference between irregularity and illegality, the irregularity comes under the ambit of rectifying the same by the concerned person who is competent enough to conduct the proceedings but illegality cannot be rectified and as such, the instant matter comes under the definition of irregularity which can be rectified by the concerned authority.

¶25

In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.181 of of 2024 (State Vs. Shamsher Ali and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 0001/2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P.Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS- Mohabbatpur Painsa, DistrictKaushambi, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Kaushambi along with charge sheet dated 16.10.2024 and summoning order dated 05.12.2024 passed in the said case, are hereby quashed in respect of applicant herein.

¶26

The instant application stands allowed accordingly.

¶27

However, the above mentioned order will not preclude the concerned authorities for re-initiation of the proceedings against applicant, if required, in accordance with law along with the dictum pronounced by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) .

¶28

October 6, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶29

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Niyaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niyaj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khusro Yusuf and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bitto @ Jitendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Taufik and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumari Muskan Chawla vs State of Up and Another

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

Adarsh Ojha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others