Have Transferred Amroha DM For Approving Gang-Charts Sans Recording Satisfaction: UP Govt Informs Allahabad HC

This decision came after HC flagged that the DM concerned had approved gang charts against the accused in several cases without signing the documents or recording any justification for his approval, which was contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, as well as guidelines issued by the HC in the case of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs State of UP.

For context, recording satisfaction by the competent authority when forwarding and approving the gang chart against an accused is the basis for invoking the UP-Gangster Act against any person. The district magistrate has the sole responsibility for preparing a proper gang chart.

In the instant case, a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal was dealing with a writ petition filed by one Asif to quash an FIR lodged against him under Section-3(1) of UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

It was his primary contention that while preparing and approving the gang chart of the impugned FIR, the SP-Amroha and the DM-Amroha did not record the required satisfaction, which is contrary to the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, as well as guidelines issued by the HC in the case of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs State of UP.

In the Sanni Mishra case, earlier this year, the High Court among other things held that the District Magistrate is responsible for investigating the recommendation of the nodal officer and Superintendent of Police and conducting joint meetings before approving the gang chart against an accused. Several other guidelines were also issued in the case.

Hearing the matter in August, the division bench had noted that while forwarding the gang chart against the accused (Asif), the SP-Amroha did not record satisfaction as required by Rules 16(2) of the Rules 2021, and even the DM did not record any satisfaction before approving the same.

Calling it his 'sheer negligence,' the Court also noted that it has come across several cases from district Amroha in which the concerned DM and SP did not properly prepare the gang chart in accordance with Rules, 2021.

Against this backdrop, the Court had directed the District Magistrate, Amroha, to file his personal affidavit to explain why guidelines issued in the Sanni Mishra case had not been followed those guidelines and why he approved the gang chart contrary to the Rules 2021 as well as guidelines issued by the High Court.

Pursuant to the Court's order, the DM Amroha filed an affidavit admitting that though he was aware of the HC guidelines regarding proper preparation of the Gang Chart, because of his engagement in the Lok Sabha election, he could not record proper satisfaction while approving the gang chart and signed the pre-typed approval.

A similar affidavit was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Amroha, in which he also expressed his regret and unconditional apology for preparing the gang chart contrary to the 2021 rules and the rulings of the HC.

In the affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), UP Government, too, it was admitted that certain lacunae existed while preparing the gang chart, and necessary steps were taken by issuing necessary directions. 

Further, specifically admitting that the 'main lacuna' was found on the part of the District Magistrate, Amroha (Mr Rajesh Kumar Tyagi), the Government advocate informed the bench that he had been transferred.

In view of this, the court resisted issuing any direction against these officers and left it open to the State Government to take appropriate action against them.

However, noting that the gang chart against the accused was prepared absolutely in violation of the 2021 Rules, 2021, and that the district magistrate approved the same by signing the pre-typed satisfaction, but he did not record any satisfaction at all and did not even sign his approval, the Court quashed the gang chart as well as the impugned FIRs (lodged against other similarly situated accused).