SHIVAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10561 of 2026

Shivam
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                        :    Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)                        :    G.A.

Court No. - 49
                   HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
                   HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vikas Srivastava, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner- Shivam has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the impugned FIR dated
20.03.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Jagdamba Prasad
Dubey, Station House Officer, P.S.- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun and
registered as Case Crime No. 0025f 2026, under Sections 2 and 3 of
the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, Police Station- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned FIR submits
that since the decision taken by the State-respondents to lodge criminal
prosecution against petitioner under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is itself illegal,
unjust and arbitrary, therefore, the criminal prosecution of petitioner
pursuant to the consequential impugned FIR cannot be sustained in law and
fact. As such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioner
invited the attention of Court to the document occurring at Page 41 of the
paper-book. With reference to the aforesaid document, the learned counsel
for petitioner submits that since there was no joint meeting of minds before a
decision was taken to lodge criminal prosecution against petitioner under
Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule 5(3)(a)
                                                         CRLP No. 10561 of 2026
                                2

of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021
stands infringed. As such, the decision so taken by the State-respondents to
lodge criminal prosecution against petitioner under aforementioned Act is
unsustainable in law and fact.

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that perusal of
the document appended at page 41 of the paper-book, will go to show that
no reason has been recorded therein on the basis of which, it was concluded
by State-respondents that criminal prosecution of petitioner is unwarranted
under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

7. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied
upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Kamalveer Singh v.
State of UP, 2025 SCC Online, Allahabad 3141, wherein the Court has
held that there must be a joint meeting of minds and secondly, specific
reason should be recorded as to why criminal prosecution of an accused
under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 is warranted. On the above premise, the learned
counsel for petitioner thus, submits that the impugned FIR is liable to be
quashed by this Court.

8. Per contra, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 to 3 has
vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned AGA with reference
to the instructions received by him contends that the submissions urged by
the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition, are not
borne out from the record. Learned AGA has placed before Court the memo
relating to the joint meeting of officers held on 19.03.2026. On basis thereof,
he submits that a joint meeting was held and further, clear and categorical
reason has been recorded on the basis of which a conclusion was drawn by
State-respondents that criminal prosecution of petitioner under Sections 2
and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the
above premise, the learned AGA would thus, submit that no interference is
warranted by this Court in present writ petition.

9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not
overcome the same.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA
representing State-respondents 1 to 3 and upon perusal of record and
                                                                                              CRLP No. 10561 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    considering the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to
                                    present writ petition, as noted hereinabove, we find that the same is also
                                    borne out from the Case Diary itself which we have perused.

                                    11. We do not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain the present
                                    writ petition. As a result, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be
                                    dismissed.

                                    12. It is accordingly, dismissed.

                                    13. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.

                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Rama Kant
                                                                         (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad