The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application seeking to quash proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, ruling that the invocation of the Act on the basis of a single case is valid. The Court further clarified that for the preparation of a gang chart, a copy of the charge sheet certified by the Investigating Officer is sufficient, and a certified copy issued by a court is not a prerequisite at that stage.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh delivered the judgment in the case of Smt. Jyoti Suri vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43062 of 2025), rejecting the plea to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order issued by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Ghaziabad.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Smt. Jyoti Suri, approached the High Court challenging the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 2636 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 502 of 2024. The FIR was lodged on September 23, 2024, at Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act.
Prior to the registration of the Gangster Act FIR, a gang chart was prepared on September 21, 2024. The chart listed a solitary base case (Case Crime No. 406 of 2024) under Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2), and 308(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The charge sheet in the base case was submitted on September 20, 2024, and the Magistrate took cognizance on September 23, 2024.
Subsequently, the investigation into the Gangster Act case was completed, and a charge sheet was submitted on August 9, 2025. The Special Judge took cognizance on August 28, 2025, which the applicant sought to quash.
Submissions of the Applicant
Counsel for the applicant, Shri Santosh Tripathi, raised several procedural objections regarding the invocation of the Gangster Act:
- Single Case: It was argued that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a solitary case in which the applicant had already obtained bail.
- Violation of Rules: The counsel contended that there was a violation of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Gangster Rules, 2021. Specifically:
- Rule 5(3)(a): No joint meeting was held by the authorities.
- Rule 5(3)(c): The gang chart was allegedly approved without the completion of the investigation in the base case.
- Rule 8(2): Unconfirmed information was entered into the gang chart.
- Rule 10(1): A certified copy of the charge sheet was not attached to the gang chart.
- Rules 16 & 17: The approval by the authorities was mechanical, without the application of independent mind.
The applicant relied on various judgments, including Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Mohd. Arif @ Guddu vs. State of UP, to support the claim that signing pre-printed proformas constitutes negligence.
Arguments of the State
Per contra, learned AGA Shri Prashant Kumar Singh and counsel for the victim, Shri Surendra Tiwari, opposed the application. They submitted that:
- Joint Meeting: A joint meeting was held on September 21, 2024, where the gang chart was discussed and approved by the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad.
- Base Case Investigation: The investigation of the base case was completed on September 20, 2024, prior to the approval of the gang chart.
- Certified Copy: Citing the Division Bench judgment in Anil Mishra vs. State of U.P., the respondents argued that Rule 10 does not require a court-certified copy of the charge sheet; a copy prepared and signed by the Investigating Officer suffices.
- Single Case Validity: Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Shraddha Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, they argued that the Gangster Act can be invoked based on a solitary case.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh examined the gang chart and the relevant legal provisions. The Court observed that the authorities had recorded their satisfaction in their own handwriting after a joint discussion, distinguishing the present matter from cases where pre-printed proformas were mechanically signed.
On the Joint Meeting and Satisfaction: The Court noted that the date of filing the charge sheet in the base case was mentioned in the gang chart. Regarding the recording of satisfaction, the Court held:
“On perusal of gang-chart of the present case, it is clear that… all the authorities recorded their satisfaction in their own hand writing in a joint meeting after due discussion… The language/satisfaction of the authorities is as per Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021 in the present case.”
On the Requirement of a Certified Copy (Rule 10): Addressing the contention regarding the non-attachment of a court-certified charge sheet, the Court referred to the Division Bench rulings in Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Anil Mishra vs. State of U.P.. The Court clarified that Rule 10 requires a copy duly certified by the officer having control over the document (the Investigating Officer).
The Court observed:
“Rule 10 of Rules, 2021 nowhere says that copy of the chargesheet has to be a copy certified by the court. Therefore, there is no violation of Rules 10(1) of the Rules, 2021. Submission of charge-sheet in the court is not a prerequisite of Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 2021.”
The Court further explained that Rule 60, which relates to proving certified copies, applies during the trial stage, not at the stage of preparing the gang chart.
On Invocation of Gangster Act on a Single Case: The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that a single case is insufficient for invoking the Act. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shraddha Gupta vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh, the Court quoted:
“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.”
On Rule 5(3)(c): The Court verified that the charge sheet in the base case was prepared on September 20, 2024, and the gang chart was prepared on September 21, 2024. Thus, the investigation was complete before the approval of the gang chart, satisfying Rule 5(3)(c).
Decision
Finding no illegality, irregularity, or violation of the Rules, 2021, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS. The Court concluded that the satisfaction recorded by the authorities was in accordance with the law and that no false information was mentioned in the gang chart.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Jyoti Suri Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 43062 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
