No Material Showing Disturbance Of Public Order Or Pecuniary Gain: Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings Under Gangsters Act
The Bench said that mechanical approval of gang chart & cognizance without recording satisfaction on statutory preconditions vitiates prosecution under the Act.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has held that proceedings under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 cannot be sustained unless there is material demonstrating that the alleged offences were committed either to disturb public order or to secure undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the charge-sheet and summoning order noting that these are essential statutory ingredients under Section 2(b) of the Act and Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules.
The Court further held that approval of a gang chart, filing of a charge-sheet, and taking cognizance cannot be undertaken mechanically. Authorities must record satisfaction regarding fulfilment of the statutory conditions before invoking the Gangsters Act. Mere involvement in predicate offences, without material establishing the requisite object contemplated under the Act, is insufficient to prosecute a person as a gangster.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “…there is no material that the act alleged by the petitioner had the effect of disturbing the even tempo of the life of the community or the public at large, as distinguished from the act directed against the victims of the offences. There is no material to establish that offences committed by the petitioner or his gang disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity. There is no material to establish that the acts alleged had been committed for disturbing public order. Therefore, the requirement of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act and Rule 3 (1) (a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021, is not fulfilled. The other contingency in which a person may be tried for an offence under Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, read with Rule 3(1)(c) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021 is that the offence was committed with the object of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage”.
Senior Advocate B.A. Khan appeared for the applicant and G.D. Bhatt, AGA-I appeared for the opposite party.
“In absence of the petitioner having been charged for the offence of extortion or attempt to make extortion of money, it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner is an accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC, the said offence was committed for gaining any pecuniary advantage”, the Bench further said.
According to the prosecution, the applicant was the leader of an organized gang involved in offences including land grabbing, violent assaults, and murder for pecuniary gain. The gang chart relied upon two cases against the applicant, including an attempt-to-murder case and a murder case registered in Kaushambi. The co-accused was shown to be involved in only one of those cases.
The applicant contended that the gang chart had been prepared in violation of statutory requirements and highlighted that the Inspector who lodged the FIR claimed to have discovered the gang's activities during patrolling on 20 July 2024, despite having himself prepared and forwarded the gang chart on 07 July 2024. This, it was argued, exposed the falsity of the prosecution narrative and reflected malice.
After examining the record and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of U.P.& Anr: 2025 SCC Online SC 1216 and Gabbar Singh @ Devendra Pratap Singh @ Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P.: 2026 SCC Online SC 451, the Court observed that there was no material indicating that the alleged offences disturbed public order as distinct from law and order, nor was there evidence showing that the murder case was committed for obtaining any pecuniary advantage.
“…trial Court has taken also taken cognizance of the offence in a mechanical manner, without recording a satisfaction regarding fulfilment of the conditions of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act and Rule 3(1) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021, which vitiates the order taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the accused to face the trial, for which reason the summoning order is unsustainable in law”, the Bench observed.
The Court found that the investigating officer, the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate, and the trial court had all failed to record satisfaction regarding fulfillment of the mandatory statutory requirements.
“The investigating officer has committed the charge-sheet without recording satisfaction that the offences mentioned in the gang-chart were committed for disturbing public order or with the object of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage. The Superintendent of Police has forwarded the gang-chart and the District Magistrate has approved the same without recording a satisfaction regarding fulfilment of the conditions of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act and Rule 3(1) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021”, the Bench said.
Cause Title: Rameez Nemat v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:39285)
Appearances:
Applicant: B.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, S.A. Hussain and Ruby Choudhary, Advocates.
Opposite Party: G.D. Bhatt, AGA-I.