Allahabad High Court
ANIL GANGWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The Court held that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the criminal revision.
Summary
The revisionist Anil Gangwar filed a criminal revision challenging the order dated 11‑09‑2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha, which rejected his discharge application and framed charges under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The revisionist contended that the District Magistrate had violated Rule 16(3) of the Act by not recording a clear satisfaction while approving the gang‑chart, and relied on a prior Division Bench judgment (Sanni Mishra v. State of U.P.) to support his claim. The State opposed, arguing that the charge had already been properly framed, the discharge application had been duly heard and rejected, and no competent court had set aside the order. The High Court examined whether any illegality or procedural irregularity existed in the impugned order. Finding none, the Court held that the revision was infructuous and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the discharge application and framing charge under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster Act is illegal or irregular.
- Whether the District Magistrate’s approval of the gang‑chart without an explicit statement of satisfaction violates Rule 16(3) of the U.P. Gangster Act.
- Whether the criminal revision filed by the accused is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 203, 302, 34, 404, 411
- U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 3(1), Rule 16(3)
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge application
- charge framing
- U.P. Gangster Act
- procedural irregularity
- Rule 16(3)
- satisfaction
- gang chart
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7914 of 2025
Anil Gangwar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kuldeep Tripathi, Shiv Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order
dated 11.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (II),
Amroha in Session Trial No.174 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 272 of 2024,
under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the charge has been framed against
the revisionist under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. It is further submitted that Case Crime No. 67 of 2024, under
Sections 302, 34, 203, 404, and 411 I.P.C., is already registered against the
revisionist/accused.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also filed a copy of the judgment and order
dated 13.12.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 16258 of 2023, Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2023: AHC: 235826-DB. It is submitted that no satisfaction has
been recorded and that the District Magistrate has violated Rule 16(3) of the Gangsters
Act. It is further submitted that while forwarding or approving the gang chart, the
competent authorities must record their required satisfaction in clear words and not
merely by signing a printed or typed format.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the submissions and submits that the charge has
already been framed against the revisionist. It is contended that the present criminal
revision has become infructuous as the discharge application filed by the revisionist
was rejected on 11.09.2025. The learned trial court, after providing due opportunity of
hearing to the revisionist/accused, passed a detailed order dated 11.09.2025 rejecting
the discharge application. Thereafter, the charge was framed on the same date. The
said order rejecting the discharge application has not been set aside by any competent
CRLR No. 7914 of 2025
2
court of law. It is thus submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order.
6. There is neither any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
7. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.
February 24, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…