Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
44. Rule 5(3)(a) stipulates that a gang chart shall be approved only after due discussion in a joint meeting comprising the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, and not through a summary process.
45. In the present case, there is nothing on record, even upon a microscopic examination, to indicate that a joint meeting was held prior to approval of the gang-chart. It is apparent that the gang-chart was approved summarily, without any discussion. It was forwarded and approved swiftly, without regard for compliance with the relevant rules. The compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) ought to be evident through the record of minutes of the joint meeting maintained in a register by the District Magistrate. 2476
46. Further, Rule 16 mandates that the Additional Superintendent of Police shall forward the letter, alongwith a recommendation on the gang-chart, to the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police only upon being satisfied that there exists a just and satisfactory grounds to pursue the case. The Additional Superintendent of Police is required to record his recommendation in clear words. It is further incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to thoroughly analyze all the facts, and only upon being satisfied that all the requirements under the Act are fulfilled and that grounds for taking action exists, he should forward the gang-chart to the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate. The Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police must also record his satisfaction not only qua the particulars of the case but also the grounds to proceed under the Act of 1986.
47. Furthermore, upon receipt of the gang chart along with all the requisite forms, the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate is required to thoroughly examine all the facts afresh and, only upon being satisfied that sufficient grounds exist to proceed, may approve the gang chart. The recorded satisfaction must clearly reflect that the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate has scrutinized the gang-chart and the accompanying forms in light of the evidence annexed thereto.
48. Once again we are anguished that not only there is no material on record to indicate communication of the satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, but also there is no mention as to on which particular date the gang-chart was forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Police to the Senior Superintendent of Police, and thereafter, to the District Magistrate for approval.
49. Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. It unequivocally prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, thereby making it impermissible for the authority to mechanically affix its signature. The underlying objective of this prohibition is to ensure that the competent authority undertakes a conscious and reasoned application of mind, rather than merely endorsing a pre-prepared document. Such a safeguard is integral to preserving the procedural sanctity of the law and preventing arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely affect the rights and liberties of individuals. [2025] 5 S.C.R. Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. i. Application of mind and satisfaction of competent authorities
50. We would like to begin with observations of Lord Halsbury in Sharp v. Wakefield, 1891 A.C. 173 at page 179; “An extensive power is confided to the justices in their capacity as justices to be exercised judicially; and “discretion” means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion…; according to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular[…]” (Emphasis is ours)
51. The satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking action under the Act of 1986. It is indispensable for the approving authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, to indicate application of mind before approving the gang-chart. The recording of satisfaction need not be exhaustive, because at the stage of approval the investigation under the Act of 1986 is yet to be conducted, but it must be independent, indicating the reasons justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under the Act of 1986.
52. It is equally apposite to mention that the satisfaction must not be a cyclostyle reproduction of the application of mind communicated by the recommending authority. This is only possible when the approving authority meticulously refers to the materials on record on the basis of which he will come to the conclusion about existence of grounds justifying registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986. Needless to say, reiteration of the contents of the FIR or chargesheet does not constitute application of mind.
53. Such satisfaction must stand on certain grounds; it cannot arise in absence of any basis, leaving the liberty of the accused in a precarious position. The basis of satisfaction must bear a reasonable nexus with the facts present before the concerned authority. Thus, the decision of the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively must be at the behest of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on record. 2478
54. An independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it is demonstrable from the record that the approving authority has, in letter and spirit, independently considered all the materials that culminated in the preparation and placement of the gang chart before him. While the correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the absence thereof certainly does not. A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens.
55. This Court in Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana & Ors., reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367, wherein one of us, J. B. Pardiwala J., writing for the Bench, while examining the attributes of satisfaction of the detaining authority under the relevant enactment, held that application of mind is implicit in subjective satisfaction of an authority. It was expressly held that proper satisfaction of the authority should be reflected clearly and in categorical terms. We shall reproduce the observations which apply mutatis mutandis to the satisfaction of the approving authority. It reads thus: “43. We summarize our conclusions as under:— (i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective satisfaction, (ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative, that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant & remote, (iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the court for insufficiency of material. Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated, [2025] 5 S.C.R. Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to ascertain as to whether the decision-making process for reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant considerations or non-application of mind, (v) While making a detention order, the authority should arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention, (vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to justify the detention order from the material that existed before him and the process of considering the said material should be reflected in the order of detention while expressing its satisfaction, (vii) Inability on the part of the state’s police machinery to tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention, (viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of detention. It cannot be explained by reason(s)/grounds(s) not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority must be the natural culmination of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on the record, and, (ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order of preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first examine the material adduced against the prospective detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s) reflect that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, second, if the aforesaid satisfaction is arrived at, it must further consider whether it is likely that the said person would act in a manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention. 2480 For passing a detention order based on subjective satisfaction, the answer of the aforesaid aspects and points must be against the prospective detenu. The absence of application of mind to the pertinent and proximate material and vital matters would show lack of statutory satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority.” (Emphasis supplied)
56. Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gang- chart, it is abundantly clear that the said gang-chart was approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre- printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete non-application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 2021 respectively. At the cost of repetition, we would like to reiterate that the recommending, forwarding, and approving authority are not mere rubber-stamping entities.
57. The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021. Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
58. The High Court of Allahabad in Sanni Mishra v. State of U.P., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975, came down heavily on the police authorities for the manner in which gang charts were being prepared, as well as the lack of application of mind by the District Magistrate in approving them. The Court laid down specific directions for the preparation of gang-charts prior to registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “22. In view of the above, this court lays down following directions for preparation of gang-chart before lodging FIR under the Gangster Act, 1986: (i) Date of filing of chargesheet under base case must be mentioned in Column-6 of the gang-chart except in cases under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021. [2025] 5 S.C.R. Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (ii) While forwarding or approving the gang-chart, competent authorities must record their required satisfaction by writing in clear words, not by signing the printed/typed satisfaction. (iii) There must be material available for the perusal of the court which shows that the District Magistrate before approving the gang-chart had conducted a joint meeting with the District Police Chief and held a due discussion for invocation of the Gangster Act, 1986.” (Emphasis supplied)
59. We also deem it necessary to make certain observations regarding the investigation conducted pursuant to the approval of the gang- chart and the registration of the subject FIR under the Act of 1986 respectively. Rule 20 mandates that, during the course of investigation, evidence pertaining to the elements of economic, material, and worldly benefits must be specifically collected. Upon being satisfied that credible, substantial, and logically coherent evidence has been compiled in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Additional Superintendent of Police shall forward the report to the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police for sanction.
60. In the present case, the sanction order merely states that, based on the examination of the evidence collected, the accused were found to be involved in the commission of offences under the IPC by forming a gang with the objective of deriving economic and monetary benefits, and that a prima facie case exists for filing a chargesheet under Section(s) 2 and 3 of the Act of 1986.
61. The materials gathered during the investigation are reflected in the chargesheet, reproduced hereinabove, and comprise the statements of six witnesses – namely, the Inspector-in-Charge, P.S. Naini, two constables posted at the same station, and the complainants in base FIRs No. 726/2017 and 244/2017. The statement of the above- mentioned witnesses does not add to what has already been stated in the base FIRs. It cannot be gainsaid that the materials garnered during the investigation only ignite conjectures and surmises, and do not make out a prima facie case to be proceeded against the appellant under the Act of 1986. At the stage of forwarding and approving the gang-chart, the competent authorities are under the 2482 obligation to record their satisfaction that a case for action under the Act of 1986 is made out, and the gang-chart and other records should reflect such satisfaction.
62. The impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned order clearly bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court which makes the interference of this Court necessary. We are of a firm view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law.
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 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- Pu-9-2024-1867437 dated 02.12.2024 identified certain shortcomings of the existing paraphernalia and introduced certain directions to correct the same alongwith a 29-points Checklist.
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: “(1) Provisions of the Act be applied only when gangster commits the crime by violence, threat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion etc. alone or group with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. xxx (3) Attested copy of the Gang Register, maintained at Police Station, be also enclosed with gang-chart. Also the criminal details collected by DCRB and CCTNS/ICJS be enclosed. xxx [2025] 5 S.C.R. Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (8) On receiving the case file at the office of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate, again end to end perusal of all the facts be made and this be ensured according to rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules 2021 that only after being satisfied by holding a joint meeting with the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police, gang- chart be approved by the Police Commissioner/District Magistrate. (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. (10) It should be shown to the satisfaction of the competent authorities that they have applied their mind not only on the gang chart but also on the documents/papers attached with the gang-chart. xxx (13) Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 2021 provides for the forwarding of gang charts by the Additional Superintendent of Police. Therefore, as per rules, under Rule 16(1) of the Rules, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Nodal Officer) should record his satisfaction in writing regarding the chart. (14) As per Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 2021, the District Police Officer, Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police, after studying the submission of the Additional Superintendent of Police under Rule 16(1) shall send the 2484 same to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, regarding his satisfaction for approval of the gang chart. (15) As per Rule 17(2) of the Rules, 2021, signatures on gang chart pre-printed on rubber stamp are prohibited. Accordingly, the approval shall be recorded on the gang chart by the competent authority only after proper use of independent mind and pre-printed rubber stamp shall not be used. xxx (17) In case, the Prosecution Officer points out any illegality/irregularity in conducting investigations or with regard to the conclusion of the documents collected during investigation proceedings, after getting done disposal of the same, as the prosecution officer is satisfied that illegality/irregularity there is no remaining, only thereafter, the Additional Superintendent of Police shall forward the above-said records to the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police for approval under Rule 20(4) of the Rules, 2021. (18) Under Rule 26 (1) of the Rules, 2021, as the case may be, whenever, the above-said Charge-sheet is sent before Commissioner/Senior the Police Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police, for granting the necessary approval under Rule 20, they, unavoidably, shall review the entire record. (19) As per Rule 36 of the Rules, 2021, thorough investigations should be conducted regarding movable and immovable properties of the gang and the source of acquisition of the same. If evidence related to the possession over any land by the gang is required to be collected, the Investigating Officer may collect the evidence from the revenue records and the Revenue Officer. xxx (26) District Police Incharge should carefully peruse all the facts and evidence collected during the investigation and only thereafter approval be given for filing of charge- sheet/final report in the concerned Court.” [2025] 5 S.C.R. Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. CONCLUSION
65. We are convinced that the continuation of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh will be nothing but abuse of the process of the law.
66. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the application under Section 482 of the CrPC, preferred by the appellant for quashing of the impugned proceedings; and rejection of the application preferred by the appellant for quashing of non-bailable warrants vide order dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 850/2018 dated 28.07.2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh are hereby quashed.
67. It is needless to clarify that the observations made in this judgment are relevant only for the purpose of the subject FIR in question and the consequential criminal proceedings. None of the observations shall have any bearing on any of the pending criminal prosecutions or any other proceedings.
68. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain