Gabbar Singh alias Devendra Pratap Singh Alias Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

2026 INSC 271 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal Nos…….………of 2026 [@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.17929-17930 of 2025]

Gabbar Singh alias Devendra Pratap Singh Alias Rajesh Singh ...Appellant Versus

State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appeals are filed against the impugned orders

declining the prayer for quashing of an FIR and rejecting the

review filed against the said order. FIR No.0125 of 2022

dated 28.05.2022 was filed under Section 3(1) of the Uttar

Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)

Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1986’) at the

Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich. The High

Court, after perusal of the Gang Chart produced as Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2026.03.20 18:39:51 IST Annexure 2, found a number of criminal cases registered Reason:

against the three different petitioners, one of whom is

Page 1 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 before us in the above appeals. It was also noticed that all

the petitioners before the High Court were in jail,

presumably arrested under the various criminal cases

pending against them.

3. 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 and so on

and so forth, many of which offences singly and together are

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 herein and

declined relief.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant, restricted the challenge to the procedure

adopted under the Act of 1986 and the Uttar Pradesh

Page 2 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,

2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2021’).

Reliance was also placed on Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of

Uttar Pradesh1. The learned Senior Counsel based on the

documents produced in the records would contend that the

Gang Chart filed along with the FIR was not in accordance

with the prescription in the Rules of 2021, a certified copy of

which; obtained from the Court to which the FIR was

transmitted from the police station in which it was

registered, having no signatures on it.

5. The learned Government Advocate for the State on the

other hand, contended that the Nodal Officer who is the

Station House Officer had forwarded the Gang Chart to the

concerned Court at the first instance, when he had

forwarded the same to the Additional Superintendent of

Police. The original of the Gang Chart as produced by the

appellant himself was specifically pointed out to show the

different dates in which the various authorities had signed

the same as prescribed under the Rules of 2021. The

appellant is the leader of the gang, indulging in so many

1 2025 SCC Online SC 1216

Page 3 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 illegal activities raising threats and intimidation against the

general public and is a menace to the society at large is the

argument.

6. We would confine ourselves to the contention raised

with respect to the prescription and the rules having not

been followed to the letter, which is essential and

necessary. Annexure P1 is the FIR registered on 28.05.2022

along with which is produced the Gang Chart as

transmitted, presumably by the Nodal Officer. 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 the written form and the approval by

affixing of signatures. Neither are the recommendations

mandated are available nor the signatures of anyone visible

in Annexure P1.

7. As pointed out by the learned Government Advocate

for the State, Exhibit P4 shows the Nodal Officer and the

Additional Superintendent of Police having signed the same

with their express recommendations on 20.05.2022 and the

Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate having

Page 4 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 approved it by affixing their signatures on 26.05.2022 and

28.05.2022 respectively. The prescription in the Rules has

thus been complied scrupulously, is the contention raised.

8. In this context, we have to look at the prescription in

the Rules as had been noticed by this Court also in Vinod

Bihari Lal1, which had extracted the relevant rules. Section

5 (1) speaks of initiation of proceedings under the Act of

1986 inter alia by a Station House Officer, which by sub-

section (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. Sub-

section (3) of Section 5 speaks of the multiple compliances

of which, relevant for our purpose 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; which obviously

does not come out from the chart, the certified copy of which

was received from the Court. Nor is there any indication of

such a meeting having been held in Annexure-P4; though

duly signed. According to the appellant the signatures were

Page 5 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 affixed post registration of the FIR. The absence of such a

joint meeting was noticed in the cited decision also and

faulted as a deviation and violation from the prescription in

the rules.

9. Rule 16(1) speaks of the Additional Superintendent of

Police taking quick forwarding action in the case, on receipt

of the Gang Chart from an SHO clearly expressing his or her

recommendation to the Senior Superintendent/

Superintendent of Police. The Senior Superintendent/

Superintendent of Police has to then forward the same to the

Commissioner/District Magistrate. 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.

10. Undisputedly, 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 is said to have

initiated the recommendation. We are unable to agree with

Page 6 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 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. Even if we assume for argument’s sake that the

Gang Chart was forwarded by the Nodal Officer to the

Jurisdictional Court, it should have contained the

recommendation and signature of the Nodal Officer, in the

least. We may not be understood as having accepted such a

procedure, which even if in vogue is not a mandate of the

statute or the rules framed under it. More importantly it

Page 7 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 cannot be condoned since the FIR registered on the strength

of the Gang Chart should have acquired that status under

the Act and the Rules, by following the prescribed

procedure which should be evident from the Chart itself.

11. 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.

12. 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. 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

Page 8 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025 the reason of the crimes having been mentioned in the

subject Gang Chart, which we have quashed on grounds

only of glaring procedural irregularity.

13. We also make it clear that we have not said anything

about the allegations raised by the Police in the offences

charged in the various criminal cases as noticed in the Gang

Chart, the proceedings in which will have to be taken to its

logical conclusion

14. The appeals stand allowed, setting aside both the

impugned orders of the High Court and quashing FIR

No.0125 of 2022 dated 28.05.2022 registered at Police

Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich.

15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

……...…….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

...………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 20, 2026.

Page 9 of 9 Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl) Nos.17929-17930 of 2025