Allahabad High Court
Mukim And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 April, 2023
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3288 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mukim And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gufran Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
The writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 24.01.2023 giving rise to Case Crimie No. 32 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station -Islam Nagar, District Budaun.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there is non-compliance of Rule 16 (3) of the the UP Gangster And Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1986 while preparing the gang chart. The provision relied upon reads as follows:-
"(3) Resolution of the Commissioner of Police/ District Magistrate.- When the gang-chart is sent to the Commissioner of Police / District Magistrate along with all the forms, all the facts will also be thoroughly perused by the Commissioner of Police/ District Magistrate and when he is satisfied that the basis of action exists in the case, then he will approve the gang-chart stating therein that: " I duly perused the gang-chart and attached Forms in the light of the evidence attached with the gang-chart satisfactory grounds exist for taking action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The gang-chart is approved accordingly."
It is noteworthy that the words written above are only illustrative. There is no compulsion to write the same verbatim but it is necessary that the meaning of approval should be the same as the recommendations written above, and it should also be clear from the note of approval marked."
Counsel for the petitioner and has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Court rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3422 of 2023 : Manish Kumar @ Manish Singh vs. State of UP & 3 Others decided on 01.03.2023. The relevant portion of this judgment relied upon, reads as follows:-
"We have perused the copy of the Gang Chart filed on record and we find that the submission of the counsel for the petitioner has substance. The District Magistrate has not even bothered to write a single word of approval which would lead to the conclusion that he has in fact applied his mind before signing the documents placed before him. The gang chart, under the circumstances, therefore, is not found to be in accordance with law."
In the judgment cited, the District Magistrate had only appended his signature on the gang chart. In the case at hand, on the contrary, the District Magistrate has written approved and thereafter appended his signature thereunder. Under the circumstances, therefore, the facts of the instant case are different from the facts in the case cited and relied upon. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be granted any benefit of the judgment in the case of Manish Kumar Singh (supra).
The second contention of counsel for the petitioner is that sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 clearly provides what is to be recorded by the District Magistrate while approving the Gang Chart.
We are unable to agree with the submission for the simple reason that the last portion of sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 states that the words mentioned in the earlier part of this rule are not required to be reproduced verbatim and are only illustrative.
What is recorded by the District Magistrate should indicate that the recommendations placed for approval before the him have been approved after due application of mind. In our considered opinion, this requirement is fulfilled by the word approved written by the District Magistrate on the gang chart. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is therefore hereby repelled.
Since the submissions of counsel for the petitioner do not find favour with the Court, the writ petition is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Priyanka