Particular Thing Must Be Done In Stipulated Manner Or Not At All When Individual Liberty Is At Stake: Supreme Court Quashes FIR

The appeals before the Apex Court were filed against the impugned orders declining the prayer for quashing of an FIR and rejecting the review filed against the said order in a case registered under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “We fall back upon the principle that when a particular thing is to be done, it should be done in the manner stipulated; here statutorily prescribed, or not at all. Especially when at stake is the liberty of an individual, precious to all and possible of breach only in accordance with law. More so in the precarious nature of the law, which permits mere naming of a person, as a gangster and automatic condemnation, which perilous consequences we leave to be considered in an appropriate case.”

“We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court and allow the criminal proceedings to be continued on the basis of the FIR registered. We quash the FIR registered since the Gang Chart accompanying the FIR was not one as prescribed under the Act of 1986 and the Rules of 2021”, it added.

Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh represented the Appellant, while AOR Namit Saxena represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

Under the Act of 1986, the petitioners were alleged to be members of a gang as defined therein, indulging in activities specifically of land grabbing, fraudulent land transactions, extortion, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, breach of peace, cheating, forgery, many of which offences singly and together were alleged in the various crimes registered against them. The captioned FIR filed under the Act of 1986 relied solely on the Gang Chart drawn up, which was challenged before the High Court. The High Court, noticing the various decisions, on interference in criminal proceedings by quashing the FIR or the charge sheet, found a prima facie case made out against the petitioners, including the appellant and declined the relief.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that a Gang Chart mandates the recommendation of the Nodal Officer and the Additional Superintendent of Police, approved by the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, the recommendations in written form and the approval by affixing of signatures. The Bench noted that neither the mandated recommendations were available nor anyone’s signatures were visible in the FIR.

The Bench noted that Section 5 (1) speaks of initiation of proceedings under the Act by a Station House Officer, which, by subsection (2) has to be presented to the District Head of Police after clear recommendation of the Additional Superintendent of Police, mentioning the detailed activities in relation to all the persons of the specified gang. Subsection (3) of Section 5 speaks of the multiple compliances. One of these is the approval of the Gang Chart after due discussion in a joint meeting of the Commissioner/District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent/Superintendent of Police, but the same did not come out from the chart, the certified copy of which was received from the Court. Nor was there any indication of such a meeting having been held, though duly signed, the Bench noted.

“Though satisfaction is to be arrived at by each of the said officers, a clear express recommendation is required only in the case of Additional Superintendent of Police and of course the SHO who initiates the proceedings; both of which are glaringly absent in the certified copy”, it added.

The Bench found that the certified copy of the Gang Chart received from the Court to which the FIR was transmitted did not have the signatures of the various authorities, including that of the Nodal Officer, who was said to have initiated the recommendation. “We are unable to agree with the learned Government Advocate that the Nodal Officer on preparation of the Gang Chart while forwarding it to the Additional Superintendent of Police had forwarded it to the Jurisdictional Court as well. It has to be pertinently observed that there is no prescription in the Rules for forwarding the Gang Chart to the Court, before it assumes the status of a Gang Chart under the Act and Rules as prescribed therein; which process has to culminate with a joint meeting of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate. The prescription also is that there should be express recommendation by the Additional Superintendent of Police, the satisfaction of which has to be arrived at by both the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate by affixing their signatures to that document after a joint meeting”, it stated.

Thus, allowing the appeal and quashing the FIR, the Bench ordered, “We make it clear that the prescription under Section 5(3)(d) shall not disable the Authorities from taking any action in accordance with the Act and Rules, merely for the reason of the crimes having been mentioned in the subject Gang Chart, which we have quashed on grounds only of glaring procedural irregularity.”

Cause Title: Gabbar Singh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 271)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh, AOR Veera Kaul Singh, Advocate Rohan Choudhary

Respondent: AOR Namit Saxena

Click here to read/download Judgment