The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against an accused, ruling that the mandatory “meeting of mind” required under the Rules was absent during the approval of the gang chart.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act could sustain when the approval of the gang chart allegedly violated mandatory Rules and lacked application of mind. Justice Pankaj Bhatia allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the Gangsters Act proceedings while relegating the challenge against other criminal cases to the stage of discharge.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Dharmendra @ Dharmendra Soni, approached the High Court challenging nine separate criminal proceedings initiated against him. These included:
- Eight cases arising from various FIRs registered at Police Station Hardi, District Bahraich in 2020.
- One case (Sessions Case No. 40 of 2021) arising out of FIR No. 203 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at the same police station.
Arguments of the Parties
The Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Abhishek Mishra assisted by Mr. Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi and Mr. Vikrant Choudhary, challenged the Gangsters Act proceedings on technical grounds. They argued that there was “non-compliance of the Rules framed under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act.” Specifically, they contended that the “meeting of mind is absent,” which was evident from the gang chart on record based on which the proceedings were initiated. It was further argued that lodging an FIR under Section 3(1) without invoking Section 2(b) was unjustified.
Regarding the other eight criminal cases, the counsel argued that there were “huge inconsistencies in the statements proposed to be relied upon in the charge-sheet.” They pointed out distinctions between dates in the statements and the recovery memos. Furthermore, they contended that for implicating the applicant under Sections 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) and 413 (habitually dealing in stolen property) of the IPC, there was no material to suggest the applicant acted knowingly or habitually.
The learned A.G.A. appeared on behalf of the State.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhatia examined the challenge to the Gangsters Act proceedings in light of recent legal precedents. The Court observed that the “meeting of mind, which is mandatory in terms of the Rules, is not adopted” in the present case.
The Court relied on the following precedents:
- Nisha vs State of U.P. and another (2025:AHC-LKO:14840)
- Vinod Bihari Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Hon’ble Supreme Court) (2025 INSC 767)
Applying the ratio of these judgments, the Court stated:
“Following the said judgments and ex-facie finding the lack of meeting of mind and not following the mandatory Rules, the proceedings of Sessions Case No.40 of 2021 arising out of FIR No.203 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act are quashed.”
However, the Court granted liberty to the authority “to take fresh decision, if so advised, in accordance with law and after following the mandatory provisions.”
Regarding the challenge to the other eight cases (Sl. No. 1 to 8), the Court noted the argument that charges had not yet been framed. The Court declined to quash these proceedings at this stage but provided an alternative remedy.
Decision
The High Court disposed of the application with the following directions:
- Gangsters Act Case: The proceedings of Sessions Case No. 40 of 2021 (FIR No. 203 of 2020) were quashed.
- Other Cases: The applicant was granted liberty to file a discharge application before the trial court. The High Court directed that “In case, such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merit, in accordance with law.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Dharmendra @ Dharmendra Soni vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 819 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
