Supreme Court of India
VINOD BIHARI LALversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 767
- Decided
- 23 May 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B PARDIWALA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred; the FIR, gang‑chart and subsequent proceedings were invalid and therefore the FIR and non‑bailable warrants were quashed.
Summary
The appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal, was named as a leader of an alleged gang under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on a subject FIR registered in 2018 that drew on several earlier base FIRs. He filed two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the FIR and the non‑bailable warrants issued against him, alleging procedural irregularities and lack of a prima facie case. The High Court rejected both applications, holding that the allegations satisfied the statutory definition of a gang and that the procedural steps were valid. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "gang" under the Act, the requirements of the 2021 Rules for preparing and approving a gang‑chart, and the parameters for quashing proceedings under Section 482. It found that the subject FIR and gang‑chart were prepared without proper application of mind, violated Rules 5, 16 and 17, and did not disclose any offence meeting the Act's criteria, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders and quashed the FIR, the non‑bailable warrants, and the related criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the appellant's applications under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and non‑bailable warrants under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
- Whether the subject FIR and the accompanying gang‑chart satisfy the statutory definition of a "gang" under Section 2(b) of the Act.
- Whether the procedural requirements of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, particularly Rules 5, 16 and 17, were complied with in the preparation and approval of the gang‑chart.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings.
- Whether the continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the applications filed u/s.482 Cr.PC by appellant for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR u/s.2 and 3 of U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the non-bailable warrants respectively. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – s.2(b) – Gang – Gang chart – FIR-Subject FIR alleging that the appellant, alongwith one DD, constituted an organized gang in terms of s.2(b) with the appellant
Subjects
GangsterGang chartQuashing of proceedingsAbuse of process of lawGuidelines for invoking provisions of the Act of 1986Approval of the gang‑chartPreparation of Gang ChartEconomic offences involving fraud and cheatingPersonal, material, and pecuniary gainAnti social activitiesDefinition of Gang
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2448 : 2025 INSC 767
Vinod Bihari Lal
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 777-778 of 2025)
23 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the
applications filed u/s.482 Cr.PC by appellant for quashing the
proceedings arising out of FIR u/s.2 and 3 of U.P. Gangsters &
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the non-bailable
warrants issued against the appellant respectively.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 – s.2(b) – Gang – Gang chart – FIR-Subject FIR
alleging that the appellant, alongwith one DD, constituted an
organized gang in terms of s.2(b) with the appellant acting as
its leader, and that the gang is adept at committing economic
offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the
kind for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for themselves
by forging documents – Application by the appellant u/s.482
CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of the trial arising out
of FIR u/ss.2 and 3 of the 1986 Act – Another application filed
by the appellant u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of non-bailable
warrants issued against the appellant passed by the Special
Judge in the impugned proceedings – High Court rejected the
applications – Challenge to:
Held: Chargesheet filed on completion of the investigation arrays
only two accused, one of whom is the appellant, is devoid of any
annexures or enclosures that might substantiate the allegations
or, indicate that a genuine, impartial and transparent investigation
was carried out – Statements attributed to the complainant and
the witnesses mere verbatim reproductions of the subject FIR and
the base FIRs – Contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2449
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency – Subject
FIR was registered after approximately a year from the date of
the registration of the first base FIR – Allegations in the base
FIR do not, even in the remotest possibility, appear to have been
committed with the object of disturbing public order or to gain any
undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself
or any other person – In the impugned proceedings, the appellant
and one DD have been arraigned as gangsters, whereas in the
three base FIRs, DD does not figure at all as an accused – In such
circumstances, the gang-chart could not have listed the said three
FIRs, as the base FIRs, against the appellant and DD together – All
this raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the investigating
agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken – In view of
the vague and general allegations levelled in the subject FIR,
requiring the appellant to stand trial would amount to abuse of the
process of law – Non-interference in such a case would result in
miscarriage of justice – High Court committed an egregious error
in declining to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings in
pursuance thereof qua the appellant – Gang-chart was approved by
the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-
printed gang-chart, an act that reflects complete non-application
of mind and constitutes a violation of rr.16 and 17 of the Rules of
2021 – Recommending, forwarding, and approving authority not
mere rubber-stamping entities – Competent authority forwarded
and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been
prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021 – Registration
of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural
safeguards – Materials garnered during the investigation only
ignite conjectures and surmises, and do not make out a prima
facie case to be proceeded against the appellant under the Act of
1986 – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant
would result in undue harassment when there is no material
against him – Impugned judgment and order whereby the High
Court rejected the applications u/s.482 CrPC, by the appellant
for quashing of the impugned proceedings; and for quashing of
non-bailable warrants, set aside – Thus, the proceedings arising
from the subject FIR quashed. [Paras 29-66]
Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 – rr.5, 16, 17 – Preparation of Gang Chart, in
conformity with the Rules, 2021 – Explained. [Paras 44-49, 56, 57]
2450 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 – s.2(b) – Definition of ‘Gang’:
Held: Definition of the term “gang” not attracted by mere association
with a miscreant group – For such a group to metamorphize into
a gang, either singly or collectively, it must engage in anti-social
activities enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of s.2(b), and must be
committed with the object of disturbing public order, or securing
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for
himself or any other person – In essence, a group of persons falls
within the ambit of s.2(b) only when the requirements set forth in
r.3 are satisfied. [Paras 21, 25]
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 – Guidelines for the purpose of invoking provisions
of the Act of 1986 – Reiterated. [Paras 63, 64]
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992)
Supp. 1 SCC 335; Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
Crl. Appeal No. 2589/2025 – relied on.
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR 388 : 1960 SCC OnLine
SC 21; Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. [2023] 11 SCR 313 : 2023
SCC OnLine SC 951; Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana & Ors.
[2024] 3 SCR 1181 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367; Ashok Kumar
Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 SCC OnLine All 203; Sukarmpal v.
State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 5848; Sanni Mishra v. State
of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975 – referred to.
Sharp v. Wakefield, 1891 A.C. 173 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.
List of Keywords
Gangster; Gang chart; Quashing of proceedings; Abuse of process
of law; Guidelines for invoking provisions of the Act of 1986;
Approval of the gang-chart; Preparation of Gang Chart; Economic
offences involving fraud and cheating; Personal, material, and
pecuniary gain; Anti social activities; Definition of Gang.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2451
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
777-778 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 36921 of 2019 and A482
No. 10817 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sidhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Ms. Jemtiben AO.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mrs. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Upadhyay, Amit Singh,
Aman Pathak, Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Shashank Pachauri.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts:-
INDEX*
A. FACTUAL MATRIX .................................................................. 2
B. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ......................................................... 6
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ............. 7
D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ....... 9
E. ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 10
a. Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of
Act of 1986 ..................................................................... 11
i. Definition of “gang” under the Act of 1986 ............. 11
ii. Principles of quashing couched in Section 482 of
the CrPC ................................................................. 21
b. Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of
Rules of 2021 ................................................................. 24
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
2452 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
i. Application of mind and satisfaction of competent
authorities ............................................................... 29
F. CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 37
1. The Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2025 arises out of the judgment
(hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”), passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.04.2023 in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 36921 of 2019, whereby the High Court
rejected the application filed by the appellant herein under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the CrPC”)
for quashing of the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 54 of
2019 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned proceedings”), arising
out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “subject FIR”),
under Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
& Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act of
1986”) lodged at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Whereas, the Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 2025 arises out of the
order (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”), passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 10817 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023, whereby the High
Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section
482 of the CrPC for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued
against the appellant vide orders dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023
respectively, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Allahabad
in the impugned proceedings.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The impugned proceedings arise out of the subject FIR, which came
to be registered against the appellant on 28.07.2018 at the instance
of the Station House Officer (SHO), P.S. Naini. The FIR alleges that
upon visits to certain areas, it was ascertained that the appellant,
alongwith one David Dutta, constitute an organized gang in terms of
Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, with the appellant acting as its leader.
It is further alleged that the gang is adept at committing economic
offences involving fraud and cheating, being offences of the kind,
described in Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC respectively
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2453
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
for personal, material, and pecuniary gain for themselves by forging
documents. On the basis of the following base FIRs, the subject FIR
was registered:
Sr. Base FIRs Allegations qua the Status of
No. appellant proceedings
1. FIR No. The appellant with other This Court quashed
476/2017 accused persons forged the FIR vide order
registered on forms and documents, dated 24.01.2024
09.08.2017 u/ siphoned off approximately in Crl. Appeal No.
Ss. 406, 419, Rs. 13 crores which was 385/2024.
420, 467, 468, the fee submitted by
471, 120B of students.
the IPC
2. FIR No. The accused persons are The High Court
170/2017 running Ewing Christian stayed the further
registered on Public School without any proceedings
21.08.2017 u/ recognition; the building vide order dated
Ss. 406, 419, of the said school is not in 04.10.2018 in
420, 467, 468, accordance with building Application u/S. 482
471, 120B of norms and is being No. 34944/2018.
the IPC run without permission
from the Allahabad
Development Authority
and the concerned
Contracted Power
Institutions. The accused
persons have hatched
a conspiracy and forged
signatures on forms and
documents. They have
misappropriated Rs. 6
crores out of the fee
deposited by the students.
Date of Incident: Not
mentioned.
3. FIR No. On 25.08.2017, the The High Court
726/2017 appellant exhorted ordered no coercive
registered on the assailants to fire a action to be taken
25.08.2017 u/ gunshot on the informant. against the appellant
Ss. 147, 148, vide order dated
Date of Incident:
149, 323, 504, 13.11.2018 in
25.08.2017
506, 307 of the Application u/S. 482
IPC No. 40320/2018.
2454 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4. FIR No. The appellant in collusion The High Court
761/2017 with another accused stayed further
registered on person appointed one proceedings
17.12.2017 u/ Sumita Parmar as the vide order dated
Ss. 419, 406, Secretary of the Diocesan 07.12.2018 in
420, 467, 468, Education Board. The Application u/S. No.
471 of the IPC accused persons have 44250/2018.
forged documents to
appoint the office bearers
and signatories to the
Board and embezzled
crores of rupees from the
Board.
Date of Incident:
01.11.2017
5. FIR No. The appellant is a member The High Court
244/2017 of organized gang who did not stay the
registered on forges documents with the proceedings as the
17.12.2017 u/ intention of encroaching appellant was on bail
Ss. 417, 419, upon vacant lands. at the relevant time.
420, 467, 468, The accused persons
471, 504, 506 have forged the order
of the IPC dated 10.04.1974 and
24.04.1974 in Suit No.
170/1974, and used fake
seal of court.
Date of Incident:
20.08.2017
4. The gang-chart qua the appellant was purportedly approved by
the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 28.07.2018. It also reflects
the signatures of Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated
27.07.2018 alongwith the recommendation of the Superintendent of
Police, Trans Yamuna and the Circle Officer, Karchhana.
5. By order dated 28.02.2023, the non-bailable warrants of arrest were
issued against the appellant by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)
in the impugned proceedings, and by order dated 14.03.2023, the
application seeking recall of the said non-bailable warrants came
to be rejected.
6. The appellant by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 36921 of 2019 assailed the impugned proceedings arising out
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2455
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
of the subject FIR; and by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 10817/2023 assailed the impugned orders and prayed for their
quashing before the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
B. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
7. The High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 36921/2019,
rejected the application preferred by the application on following
three grounds:
i. First, the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant
that in order for a group of individuals to constitute a “gang”,
‘violence’ or ‘disturbance of public order’, whether acting
singly or collectively for pecuniary gain, are the two essential
ingredients for constituting a gang. The Court held that violence
or disturbance of public order is not sine qua non for constituting
a “gang” under Section 2(b) of the Act. According to the High
Court, Section 2(b) contemplates a group of persons, acting
either singly or collectively, who employ violence, or threat,
or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or engage
in conduct falling within the expression “or otherwise” with
the object of either (i) disturbing public order, or (ii) obtaining
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage
for themselves or for others, and who indulge in anti-social
activities as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxii) of Section 2(b)
of the Act of 1986.
ii. As the natural corollary to the aforesaid, the twin objectives
of disturbing public order or gaining undue advantage may be
resorted to through any of the means enumerated in Section
2(b), or by any other way. The use of the term ‘otherwise’
indicates that the group may act in any manner to achieve these
objectives, even in the absence of violence, coercion, or other
overtly expressed means in the provision. Upon perusing the
base FIRs, the High Court held that, in any event, the appellant
could not have contended that there was no allegation of
violence, or threat of violence against him.
iii. Secondly, the High Court rejected the submission of the
appellant that owing to the interim orders passed by the High
Court and this Court in the base FIRs, it could no longer be
2456 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
said the appellant was being prosecuted under the provisions
of the Act of 1986. The Court held that an order staying the
proceedings or restraining the police from taking any coercive
steps neither extinguishes nor exonerates the alleged offence;
it merely keeps the proceedings in abeyance.
iv. Thirdly, on the submission advanced by the appellant that there
was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules 5(2),
5(3), 16 and 17 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (for short,
“the Rules of 2021”), the High Court held that the law does
not mandate the use of any specific words to demonstrate
independent application of mind by the recommending and
approving authorities. It further maintained that the gang-chart
reflected due and independent application of mind by all the
authorities, and any inconsistency in the manner of approval
of the gang-chart would be inconsequential once the case has
progressed to the stage of trial.
8. The High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10817/2023,
rejected the application preferred by the appellant, holding that the
challenge pertained to procedural steps in aid of the trial rather than
to any substantive order, and that a mere challenge to procedure,
without seeking any substantive relief, could not be entertained.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant is before us with the
present appeal.
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
10. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant, submitted that the four base FIRs, namely FIR No.
170/2017, FIR No. 726/2017, FIR No. 761/2017 and FIR No. 244/2017
respectively, do not attribute any specific overt act to the appellant
except for the omnibus allegation that he, in collusion with the other
accused persons, forged documents for the purpose of grabbing land
and embezzled money from the fees deposited by the students. He
further submitted that there is no allegation, even remotely, of the
use of force and violence in the said FIRs. According to him, the
allegations do not disclose that the primary objective behind the
commission of the alleged offences was to disturb the public order.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2457
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
11. Mr. Dave further submitted that a plain reading of Section 2(b) of
the Act of 1986 reveals that a group of persons can be regarded
a “gang” only if they engage in any anti-social activities through
violence, or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion
with the object of disturbing public order and gaining any undue
temporal, or pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself.
He submitted that from the bare reading of Rule 3 of the Rules of
2021, it is clear that the ingredients of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
are necessary concomitants in the FIR under the Act of 1986. In the
present case, the four base FIRs do not reveal any disturbance to
public order or violence or threat.
12. He contended that the appellant is an accused in the abovementioned
FIRs alongwith other accused persons. The appellant is alleged to
be running a “gang” with one David Dutta, who is also named as an
accused in the base FIR No. 170/2017. However, the other accused
persons named in the remaining FIRs have not been arrayed as
accused in the subject FIR, which has been registered under the Act
of 1986. In other words, there is no plausible explanation as to why
those other accused persons were not included in the subject FIR,
if the same is based on the allegations contained in the base FIR.
13. Mr. Dave placed strong reliance on the decision of the High Court of
Allahabad in Nafees & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported as
2011 SCC OnLine All 852, to contend that before the provisions the
Act of 1986 are invoked, the authorities record satisfaction that there
exists a reasonable and proximate connection between the alleged
occurrence and the activity of the person sought to be apprehended.
He submitted that such activities must be directed towards securing
undue temporal, physical, economic or other advantages.
14. In the last, Mr. Dave questioned the conduct of the informant/
complainant in the respective FIRs, as well as the veracity of the
FIRs themselves, pointing out that base FIR No. 170/2017 does not
mention the date of the alleged incident and that the delay in lodging
all the base FIRs remain unexplained. He highlighted the mala fides
on the part of the complainant in lodging FIR No. 170/2017 and FIR
No. 761/2017 respectively. In support of this submission, he referred
to the observations of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 2024,
wherein it was noted that the non-appearance of the complainant
2458 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
reflected a prejudicial attitude and an inability to substantiate the
allegations made against the appellant.
D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
15. Ms. Garima Prashad, the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted
that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to
have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned
judgment. She submitted that the subject FIR contains allegations
that the appellant resorted to public threats and coercion, including
physical violence, which squarely falls within the ambit of anti-social
activities as defined Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986.
16. The learned A.A.G. further submitted that a bare perusal of the base
FIRs reveal commission of cognizable offence by the appellant. In
addition to these FIRs, she pointed out that there are thirty-two criminal
cases pending against the appellant, in which chargesheets have
been filed, disclosing serious allegations against him. In support of
her submission, Ms. Prashad, referred to the statement of informants
and witnesses in the subject FIR and the base FIRs. In the last,
the A.A.G submitted that the impugned proceedings do not warrant
quashing, as a prima facie case is made out against the appellant.
E. ANALYSIS
17. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side,
we must try to understand the basic principles governing quashing of
complaints and criminal proceedings. This Court, in various judgments,
more particularly in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported as
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down parameters for quashing of
an FIR and the subsequent proceedings thereof. It is through the lens
of these parameters that we shall examine whether the impugned
proceedings warrant quashing, or whether the impugned judgment
is correct in declining to do so. The parameters are:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2459
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
a. Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Act of
1986
i. Definition of “gang” under the Act of 1986
2460 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
18. At this stage, we shall refer to the definition of “gang” as set out in
Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986. The definition reads thus:
“(b) “Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either
singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of
violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with
the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any
undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social
activities, namely—[…]”
19. Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 should be read alongside Rule 3 of
the Rules of 2021, which states as follows:
“3. Conditions of criminal liability.- (1) The offences
mentioned in sub sections (i) to (xxv) of clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Act shall be punishable under the Act
only if they are:-
(a) committed for disturbing public order; or
(b) committed by causing violence or threat or display
of violence, or by intimidation, or coercion or otherwise,
either singly or collectively, for the purpose of obtaining
any unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary or other
advantage to himself or to any other person.”
20. The definition of “gang” under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986
comprises the following essentials;
i. A group of persons i.e., there can be no gang of one person;
ii. The group of persons, acting either individually or collectively,
indulges in anti-social activities as enumerated in clauses (i)
to (xxv) of Section 2(b);
iii. Indulgence in such anti-social activities is by means of violence,
or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or
otherwise;
iv. Use of such means is with the object of disturbing public order,
or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage for himself or any other person.
21. It is apparent that the definition of the term “gang” is not attracted
by mere association with a miscreant group. For such a group to
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2461
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
metamorphize into a gang, it must engage in anti-social activities
enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), and these must
be committed for the object mentioned thereunder. In essence, a
group of persons falls within the ambit of Section 2(b) only when
the requirements set forth in Rule 3 are satisfied.
22. This Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported
as (2022) 19 SCC 57, held that an accused can be termed as
“gangster” when he as a member of a gang, has indulged in any of
the enumerated anti-social activities, whether by means expressly
stated or otherwise, with the object of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
for himself or any other person. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“25. A group of persons may act collectively or any one
of the members of the group may also act singly, with the
object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social
activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act,
who can be termed as “gangster”. A member of a “gang”
acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a
member of the “gang” and comes within the definition of
“gang”, provided he/she is found to have indulged in any
of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of
the Gangsters Act.
xxx
27. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the
statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore,
considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986
as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge-
sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a
“gang” and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as,
by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation,
or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public
order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material
or other advantage for himself or any other person and
he/she can be termed as “gangster” within the definition
of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for
the offences under the Gangsters Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
2462 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
23. A Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar Dixit v.
State of U.P., reported as 1987 SCC OnLine All 203, while deciding
on the constitutional validity of the Act of 1986 noted that the term
“gang” means a group of persons who by violence, or threat, or
show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise indulge
in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order or
gaining any undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage
for himself. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“12. Section 2(b) defines the term “Gang” to mean a group
of persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence or
intimidation or coercion etc. indulge in anti-social activities
with the object of disturbing public order of gaining any
undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage
for himself. S. 2(b) read as a whole necessarily brings in
the concept of violence or intimidation or coercion etc.
which is resorted to for gaining material advantage. Then
we have cl. (c) of S. 2 which defines the word “Gangster”.
It means a member or leader or organiser of a group
which indulges in the kind of activities set out under the
various sub-clauses of cl. (b) of S. 2, by use of violence
or threat or show of violence or intimidation etc. S. 3(i)
lays down the penalty for being the member or leader or
organiser of a group which engages or indulges in the
kind of unsocial activities enumerated under S. 2(b) by
use of violence etc.”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. A more lucid exposition of the essential requirements was provided in
the recent decision of Sukarmpal v. State of U.P., reported in 2024
SCC OnLine All 5848. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“11. From the definition of gang under Section 2(b) of the
Gangster Act, it is clear that merely becoming a member of
a gang will not be punishable unless the gang falls within
the purview of Section 2(b) of Gangster Act and for the
punishment of the member or organizer or leader of a gang
under the Gangster Act, conditions mentioned in Rule 3
must be fulfilled, which prescribes that offence mentioned in
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2463
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act
must be committed for disturbing public order or committed
by causing violence or threat or coercion or otherwise for
the purpose of obtaining unfair trustworthy, pecuniary,
economic, material or other advantage. Therefore, merely
because a person has committed any offence mentioned
in Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of sub-section (b) of Section 2
of the Gangster Act will not itself come within the purview
of the Gangster Act unless he is member of a gang falling
under Section 2(b) of Gangster Act.
12. Even the Rule 4(2) of the Gangster Rules itself provides
that, if a member of a gang has committed any offence
which comes within the purview of the Act along with any
other members then he will be presumed to be a gang.
Therefore, punishing a person under the Gangster Act
basic condition to be a member of a gang under Section
2(b) of the Gangster Act must be satisfied.
13. Rule 6 of the Gangster Rules also provides that at the
time of preparation of gang chart, it must be mentioned
that act of gang falls within the purview of Section 2(b) of
the Gangster Act. Therefore, it is clear that for bringing
an offence within the purview of Gangster Act, it must be
committed by a member of a gang for the object mentioned
in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act by doing the activities
mentioned in Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Gangster Act. Therefore, if any offence
is committed whether the same falls within the category
of Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the Gangster
Act or not, that will not come within the purview of the
Gangster Act unless the same is done with the object
mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. From the above exposition of law, a group of persons may be said
to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively,
indulge in any of the anti-social activity enumerated in clauses (i)
to (xvv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise,
and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or
2464 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
for himself or any other person.
26. Although the present matter presently before us pertains solely to the
subject FIR in question, yet it must be noted that an FIR registered
under the Act of 1986 cannot be sustained in the absence of a base
case/FIR. Accordingly, it becomes imperative to undertake a prima
facie examination of the allegations underlying the registration of the
subject FIR and the consequent preparation of gang-chart.
27. We deem it necessary to reiterate that our observations concerning
the base FIRs are confined exclusively to the purpose of assessing
the subject FIR and the impugned proceedings before us. The trial
arising from the base FIRs shall, in no manner whatsoever, be
prejudiced or influenced by the present discussion.
28. In the subject FIR, it is alleged that upon visits to certain areas, it
surfaced that the appellant, alongwith one David Dutta, constitute an
organized gang, with the appellant acting as its leader. It is further
alleged that the gang is adept at committing economic offences involving
fraud and cheating, being offences of the kind, described in Chapters
XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC for personal, material, and pecuniary
gain for themselves by forging documents. The subject FIR reads thus:
“To, The Head Writer, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad.
Today, on 28.07.2018, I (SHO) Pradeep Kumar Mishra
along with accompanying Constable Narain Singh,
Constable Ramsharan Verma and driver Mayapati Singh
returned through government vehicle from visit area
and investigation From visit area, it has ascertained that
Vinod B. Lal son of Mr. Bihari Lal resident of Agriculture
Campus, Naini, Allahabad, (2) David Dutta son of Mr. A.B.
Dutta resident of 86, Meurabad, P.S. Cantt., Allahabad
are having an organized gang and its gang leader is
Vinod B. Lal who is a habitual criminal of economic
offences by committing fraud and cheating and commits
offence mentioned in Chapter 16, 17 and 22 for personal,
physical and financial benefits by forging documents to
commit economic offence to get money. Due to their fear
and terror, local people have no courage to get lodged
complaint against them. On account of running Christian
Public School at Katzoo Road, Shahganj by them without
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2465
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
obtaining permission from Development Authority, Mr.
Diwakar Nath Tripathi, Vide President, Bhartiya Janta Party,
Allahabad (Kashi Region) had got registered Case Crime
No.170/2017 under section 406/419/20/467/468/471120-
B IPC P.S. Shahganj on 21.07.2017, investigation of
which has conducted by SI Mohd. Zameer who after
collecting the evidence has forwarded charge-sheet on
12.01.2018. On 09.08.2017, upon information of Mr.
Diwakar Tripathi, Case Crime No.476/2017 under sections
406/419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC has registered, which
was investigated by Inspector Prakash Singh who in regard
to evidence has forwarded Charge-Sheet No. 154 /2017
dated 04.10.2017. On 25.08.2017, on the information of
Shaheem Siddiqui son of Late Mr. Nashimuddin Siddiqui
resident of 7-D, Mahewa, Naini, in P.S. Naini Case Crime
No.726/2017 under sections 147/148/323/504/506/307 IPC
was registered against Ram Kishan etc., investigation of
which was conducted by SI Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh
who in regard to the evidence, forwarded Charge-Sheet
bearing No.65/2018 dated 01.03.2018 against the above-
named accused Vinod B. Lal before the Hon’ble Court.
On 17.12.2017, on written complaint of Mr. Diwakar Nath
Tripathi, in P.S. Civil Lines, Case Crime No.761/2017 under
sections 419 /420/406/467/468/471/120-B against P.C.
Singh and 7 others was registered and its investigation
was conducted by SI Mr. Bhunesh Kumar Singh who
in regard to the evidence has forwarded Charge-Sheet
No.59/2018 dated 09.04.2018 against accused Vinod B.
Lal and 6 others. On 17.12.2017, on the basis of written
information of Mr. Rudra Narain Pathak son of Mr. Chandra
Shekhar Pathak resident of Rampur, P.S. Rampur, District
Varanasi, Case Crime No.244/2017 under sections
147/419/420/467/468/471/504/506 IPC was registered
against Arun Pal and 11 others, investigation of which was
conducted by Si B. Ramraj Singh who in sequence to the
evidence has submitted Charge-Sheet No.63/2018 dated
01.04.2018 against the accused R.K. Gaban and Vinod
B. Lal was submitted. Likewise, accused Vinod B. Lal and
David Dutta have committed offence under sections 2/3
of Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, 1986. Approval for gang
chart of the aforesaid accused has obtained from District
2466 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Magistrate, Allahabad. Send SR after registration of charge
and informed higher officials through RT. Sd\- (illegible)
English (Pradeep Kumar Mishra) Pradeep Kumar Mishra,
In-Charge-cum-Inspector, Naini Allahabad Sd Constable
Narain Singh, Sd Constable Ram Sharan Verma. NOTE: I,
HCP Ramdev Shukla certify that copy of complaint has
got typed in computer verbatim.”
29. The chargesheet filed on completion of the investigation arrays only
two accused, one of whom is the appellant, and states, in so many
words, that based on the investigation conducted, reading of the
statement of complainant and other witnesses, and the perusal of the
gang-chart alongwith the FIRs mentioned therein, the offence under
Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively of the Act of 1986 stands “proved”
against the accused persons. The chargesheet is devoid of any
annexures or enclosures that might substantiate the allegations or,
at the very least, indicate that a genuine, impartial and transparent
investigation was carried out. The statements attributed to the
complainant and the witnesses are mere verbatim reproductions of
the subject FIR and the base FIRs. The chargesheet states thus:
“Sir, on the basis of written complaint of the Complainant
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, In-Charge/Inspector, Naini
and approved gang chart, charge has registered on
28.07.2018. In compliance of direction of Area Officer,
investigation of the offence has commenced by SHO Mr.
Onkar Shukla, P.S. Dhupur. After transfer of the case of
the Complainant, on 17.11.2018, investigation has handed
over to In-Charge/Inspector Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh.
Subsequent to arrival, after handing over the investigation
to me, I (In-Charge/ Inspector) has conducted it. From the
investigation till date, statement of the Complainant and
witnesses, perusal of gang chart and FIRs mentioned in
gang chart as well as charge-sheet, through permission
from Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj, offence
under sections 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act and
Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986 are very well proved against
the accused, i.e., (1) Vinod B. Lal son of Mr. Bihari Lal
resident of Agriculture Campus, P.S. Naini, Prayagraj, (2)
David Dutta son of Mr. A.B. Dutta resident of 86, Meurabad,
P.S. Cantt., Prayagraj. Charge-Sheet bearing No.235/2019
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2467
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
dated 09.05.2019 against the accused persons is submitted
before the Hon’ble Court. Investigation is concluded.”
30. The contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and cavalier attitude
on the part of the investigating agency, as it discloses nothing beyond
what was already stated in the subject FIR. Further, it remains obscure
how the investigating authorities could assert that the offence under
Section(s) 2 and 3 respectively stands “proved” against the appellant
sans enclosing any documentary proved. We strongly disapprove of
this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating
authority proclaims an offence to be “proved”. We would like to remind
that the role of investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to
conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime; the guilt
or the innocence of the accused is for the trial court to determine.
31. It is noteworthy to mention that the subject FIR was registered after
approximately a year from the date of the registration of the first base
FIR. In the three base FIRs – FIR No. 726/2017, FIR No. 761/2017,
and FIR No. 244/2017, respectively, the allegations against the
appellant pertain to offences under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the IPC
and thus, may fall within the scope of anti-social activities itemized
under Section 2(b). Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that
these acts were committed by any of the means specified therein,
they do not, even in the remotest possibility, appear to us that they
had been committed with the object of disturbing public order or to
gain any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for
himself or any other person.
32. It is also pertinent to note that in the impugned proceedings, the
appellant and one David Dutta have been arraigned as gangsters,
whereas in the above-mentioned three base FIRs, David Dutta does
not figure at all as an accused. In such circumstances, the gang-
chart could not have listed the said three FIRs, as the base FIRs,
against the appellant and David Dutta together. If the investigating
agency contemplated the existence of a gang comprising of both
known and unknown persons, then it becomes incumbent upon the
investigating agency to specify the same in both the gang-chart and
the chargesheet.
33. We find merit in the submission advanced by Mr. Dave that if the
subject FIR and the gang-chart were indeed prepared on the strength
of the base FIRs, there is no good or plausible explanation coming
2468 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
from the investigating agency as to why no investigation was initiated
against other similarly placed accused persons named therein. This
selective approach raises serious doubts about the bona fides of
the investigating agency and integrity of the investigation undertaken
under the Act of 1986.
34. Moreover, of the two remaining base FIRs – FIR No. 476/2017 and
FIR No. 170/2017 respectively, one has already been quashed by this
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 385/2024 vide order dated 24.01.2024.
In the other FIR, i.e., FIR No. 170/2017, the date of the incident
is conspicuously absent, though the FIR itself was registered on
21.08.2017. The allegations therein pertain to the administration of
a school and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have
been committed with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining
any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage for the
appellant or any other person.
35. The allegations also fail to disclose whether any act of violence,
threat, show of violence, intimidation, or coercion was resorted to for
achieving the said object. Even the chargesheet filed pursuant to the
investigation in the said base FIR, apart from mere reiteration of the
contents of the FIR, makes only a vague reference to the signatures
allegedly forged on certain forms and documents.
36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in
view of the vague and general allegations levelled in the subject
FIR, requiring the appellant to stand trial would amount to nothing
but an abuse of the process of law. Non-interference in such a case
would result in miscarriage of justice.
ii. Principles of quashing couched in Section 482 of the CrPC
37. This Court, in catena of decisions, has observed that it is not for the
courts to embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness
of the allegations made in the FIR at the stage of quashing of
the proceedings. However, it is of paramount importance that the
allegations made against the accused, if taken at face value, must
disclose the commission of an offence, whether from the FIR, the
chargesheet, or other relevant materials. It is incumbent upon the
courts to exercise their discretionary powers where the materials on
record indicate that the criminal proceeding are being misused as
instruments of oppression or harassment.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2469
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
38. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported as 1960 SCC OnLine SC
21, this Court held that where the allegations constitute an offence,
but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced
clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge, the High Court can
and should quash the proceedings. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“6.[…]It is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in
a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an
accused person must be tried under the provisions of the
Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere
with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not
possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible
rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent
jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories
of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should
be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may
be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to
take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal
proceedings against an accused person may amount to the
abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of
the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice.
If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an
offence alleged to have been committed by an accused
person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding
the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding
on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for
instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may
also arise where the allegations in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the
offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating
evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the
complaint or the first information report to decide whether
the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it
2470 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would
be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal
court to be issued against the accused person. A third
category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise.
In cases falling under this category the allegations made
against the accused person do constitute offence alleged
but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support
of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails
to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases
it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a
case where there is no legal evidence or where there
is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent
with the accusation made and cases where there is legal
evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support
the accusation in question[…]”
(Emphasis supplied)
39. In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameter nos. 1
and 7 respectively of Bhajan Lal (supra) referred to above. The duty
of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR
or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance was delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v.
State of U.P., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, wherein one
of us, J.B. Pardiwala, J., was part of the Bench. We may refer to
the following observations with profit:
“34. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes
a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant decides
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2471
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive
for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would
ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all
the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such
that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough
for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/
complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence
are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances leading
to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge
as alleged.”
(Emphasis supplied)
40. The learned A.A.G submitted that considering the criminal
antecedents of the appellant, the impugned proceedings may not
be quashed. In this regard, details have been furnished qua the
antecedents of the appellant. Although, a perusal of the same
may give an impression that the appellant is a history sheeter and
hardened criminal yet as held in Mohammad Wajid (supra), the
criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be the sole consideration
to decline to quash the proceedings if otherwise no offence is
disclosed. It would be apposite to revisit the relevant observations,
which read as follows:
2472 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“38.[…] However, when it comes to quashing of the FIR
or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the
accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline
to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a
legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad
his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose
commission of any offence or his case falls within one
of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case
of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline
to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the
accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has
adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named
as accused. In Directorate of Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar
Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370, this Court explicitly recognises
the right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds
as one of the underlying mandates of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Thus, the requirement and need to balance
the law enforcement power and protection of citizens
from injustice and harassment must be maintained. It
goes without saying that the State owes a duty to ensure
that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it
also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are
unnecessarily harassed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
41. Upon evaluating the present case in the context of the allegations
made and in light of the decisions referred, we have no hesitation in
saying that the High Court committed an egregious error in declining
to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the
subject FIR No. 850/2018 and all further proceedings in pursuance
thereof qua the appellant.
b. Testing the Impugned Proceedings on the anvil of Rules
of 2021
42. At this stage, it is important to ascertain whether the gang-chart was
approved in conformity with the Rules of 2021. The general rules
to be followed qua approval of gang-chart have been stipulated in
Rule 5 of the Rules of 2021. It reads thus:
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2473
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
“5. General Rules.—(1) To initiate proceedings under this
Act, the concerned Incharge of Police Station/Station
House Officer/Inspector shall prepare a gang-chart
mentioning the details of criminal activities of the gang.
(2) The gang-chart will 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 said gang.
(3) The following provisions shall be complied with in
respect of gang-charts:—
a. The gang-chart will not be approved summarily but after
due discussion in a joint meeting of the Commissioner of
Police/District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police/
Superintendent of Police.
b. There may be no gang of one person but there may be
a gang of known and other unknown persons and in that
form the gang-chart may be approved as per these rules.
c. The gang-chart shall not mention those cases in which
acquittal has been granted by the Special Court or in
which the final report has been filed after the investigation.
However, the gang-chart shall not be approved without the
completion of investigation of the base case.
d. Those cases shall not be mentioned in the gang-chart,
on the basis of which action has already been taken once
under this Act.
e. A separate list of criminal history, as given in Form
No.—4, shall be attached with the gang-chart detailing all
the criminal activities of that gang and mentioning all the
criminal cases, even if acquittal has been granted in those
cases or even where final report has been submitted in
the absence of evidence.
Along with the above, a certified copy of the gang register
kept at the police station shall also be attached with the
gang-chart. In addition to the above, the information of
crime and gang members mentioned in the gang-chart will
also be updated on Interoperable Criminal Justice System
2474 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(ICJS) portal and Crime and Criminal Tracking Network
System (CCTNS).”
43. Likewise, Rules 16 and 17 respectively stipulate the manner for
approval of gang-chart and the application of independent mind by
the competent authorities. The same are quoted below:
“16. Forwarding of Gang-Chart.-The following manner shall
be followed in the forwarding of Gang-Chart:
(1) Forwarding of the gang-chart by the Additional
Superintendent of Police.- The Additional Superintendent
of Police will not only take a quick forwarding action in
the case but he will duly peruse the gang-chart and all
the attached forms; and when it is satisfied that there is a
just and satisfactory basis to pursue the case, only then
will he forward the letter along with the recommendation
given below on the gang-chart to the Superintendent of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police.
“Thoroughly studied the gang-chart and attached
evidence. The basis of action under the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1986 exists. Accordingly, forwarded with
recommendation.”
(2) Forwarding of the gang-chart by the district police in-
charge.- When the gang-chart along with all the Forms
is received by the Senior Superintendent of Police/
Superintendent of Police with the clear recommendation
of the Additional Superintendent of Police, he will also
thoroughly analyze all the facts and when it is confirmed
that all the formalities of the Act, have been fulfilled and
there is a legal basis for taking action in the case, then
he should forward the gang-chart to the Commissioner of
Police/District Magistrate stating that:
“I have duly perused the gang-chart and attached
forms and I am fully satisfied that all the particulars
mentioned in the case are correct and there is
a satisfactory basis for taking action under the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. Accordingly, approved.”
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2475
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(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.
17. Use of independent mind.—(1) The Competent
Authority shall be bound to exercise its own independent
mind while forwarding the gang-chart.
(2) A pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart should not be
signed by the Competent Authority; otherwise the same
shall tantamount to the fact that the Competent Authority
has not exercised its free mind.”
44. Rule 5(3)(a) stipulates that a gang chart shall be approved only
after due discussion in a joint meeting comprising the District
Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent of Police, and not through a summary process.
45. In the present case, there is nothing on record, even upon a
microscopic examination, to indicate that a joint meeting was held
prior to approval of the gang-chart. It is apparent that the gang-chart
was approved summarily, without any discussion. It was forwarded
and approved swiftly, without regard for compliance with the relevant
rules. The compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) ought to be evident through
the record of minutes of the joint meeting maintained in a register
by the District Magistrate.
2476 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
46. Further, Rule 16 mandates that the Additional Superintendent of
Police shall forward the letter, alongwith a recommendation on the
gang-chart, to the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of
Police only upon being satisfied that there exists a just and satisfactory
grounds to pursue the case. The Additional Superintendent of Police
is required to record his recommendation in clear words. It is further
incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent
of Police to thoroughly analyze all the facts, and only upon being
satisfied that all the requirements under the Act are fulfilled and that
grounds for taking action exists, he should forward the gang-chart to
the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate. The Superintendent
of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police must also record his
satisfaction not only qua the particulars of the case but also the
grounds to proceed under the Act of 1986.
47. Furthermore, upon receipt of the gang chart along with all the requisite
forms, the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate is required to
thoroughly examine all the facts afresh and, only upon being satisfied
that sufficient grounds exist to proceed, may approve the gang chart.
The recorded satisfaction must clearly reflect that the Commissioner
of Police/District Magistrate has scrutinized the gang-chart and the
accompanying forms in light of the evidence annexed thereto.
48. Once again we are anguished that not only there is no material on
record to indicate communication of the satisfaction of the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and the
District Magistrate, but also there is no mention as to on which
particular date the gang-chart was forwarded by the Additional
Superintendent of Police to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
and thereafter, to the District Magistrate for approval.
49. Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority must exercise its
independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. It unequivocally
prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, thereby making it
impermissible for the authority to mechanically affix its signature. The
underlying objective of this prohibition is to ensure that the competent
authority undertakes a conscious and reasoned application of mind,
rather than merely endorsing a pre-prepared document. Such a
safeguard is integral to preserving the procedural sanctity of the law
and preventing arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely
affect the rights and liberties of individuals.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2477
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
i. Application of mind and satisfaction of competent
authorities
50. We would like to begin with observations of Lord Halsbury in Sharp v.
Wakefield, 1891 A.C. 173 at page 179;
“An extensive power is confided to the justices in their
capacity as justices to be exercised judicially; and
“discretion” means when it is said that something is to
be done within the discretion of the authorities that that
something is to be done according to the rules of reason
and justice, not according to private opinion…; according
to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague,
and fanciful, but legal and regular[…]”
(Emphasis is ours)
51. The satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking
action under the Act of 1986. It is indispensable for the approving
authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, to indicate
application of mind before approving the gang-chart. The recording of
satisfaction need not be exhaustive, because at the stage of approval
the investigation under the Act of 1986 is yet to be conducted, but it
must be independent, indicating the reasons justifying the exercise
of jurisdiction under the Act of 1986.
52. It is equally apposite to mention that the satisfaction must not be a
cyclostyle reproduction of the application of mind communicated by
the recommending authority. This is only possible when the approving
authority meticulously refers to the materials on record on the basis
of which he will come to the conclusion about existence of grounds
justifying registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986. Needless to
say, reiteration of the contents of the FIR or chargesheet does not
constitute application of mind.
53. Such satisfaction must stand on certain grounds; it cannot arise in
absence of any basis, leaving the liberty of the accused in a precarious
position. The basis of satisfaction must bear a reasonable nexus
with the facts present before the concerned authority. Thus, the
decision of the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities
respectively must be at the behest of the application of mind to the
relevant and material facts available on record.
2478 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
54. An independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it
is demonstrable from the record that the approving authority has,
in letter and spirit, independently considered all the materials that
culminated in the preparation and placement of the gang chart before
him. While the correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond
the scope of judicial scrutiny, the absence thereof certainly does not.
A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending,
forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible,
as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens.
55. This Court in Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana & Ors., reported
as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367, wherein one of us, J. B. Pardiwala J.,
writing for the Bench, while examining the attributes of satisfaction
of the detaining authority under the relevant enactment, held that
application of mind is implicit in subjective satisfaction of an authority.
It was expressly held that proper satisfaction of the authority should
be reflected clearly and in categorical terms. We shall reproduce the
observations which apply mutatis mutandis to the satisfaction of the
approving authority. It reads thus:
“43. We summarize our conclusions as under:—
(i) The Detaining Authority should take into consideration
only relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite
subjective satisfaction,
(ii) It is an unwritten law, constitutional and administrative,
that wherever a decision-making function is entrusted to
the subjective satisfaction of the statutory functionary, there
is an implicit duty to apply his mind to the pertinent and
proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant
& remote,
(iii) There can be no dispute about the settled proposition
that the detention order requires subjective satisfaction
of the detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be
questioned by the court for insufficiency of material.
Nonetheless, if the detaining authority does not consider
relevant circumstances or considers wholly unnecessary,
immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then such
subjective satisfaction would be vitiated,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2479
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(iv) In quashing the order of detention, the Court does
not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective
satisfaction. The anxiety of the Court should be to
ascertain as to whether the decision-making process for
reaching the subjective satisfaction is based on objective
facts or influenced by any caprice, malice or irrelevant
considerations or non-application of mind,
(v) While making a detention order, the authority should
arrive at a proper satisfaction which should be reflected
clearly, and in categorical terms, in the order of detention,
(vi) The satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere statement
in the order that “it was necessary to prevent the detenu
from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order”. Rather the detaining authority will have to
justify the detention order from the material that existed
before him and the process of considering the said
material should be reflected in the order of detention while
expressing its satisfaction,
(vii) Inability on the part of the state’s police machinery to
tackle the law and order situation should not be an excuse
to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive detention,
(viii) Justification for such an order should exist in the
ground(s) furnished to the detenu to reinforce the order of
detention. It cannot be explained by reason(s)/grounds(s)
not furnished to the detenu. The decision of the authority
must be the natural culmination of the application of mind to
the relevant and material facts available on the record, and,
(ix) To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting an order
of preventive detention, the detaining authority must, first
examine the material adduced against the prospective
detenu to satisfy itself whether his conduct or antecedent(s)
reflect that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and, second, if the aforesaid
satisfaction is arrived at, it must further consider whether
it is likely that the said person would act in a manner
prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is
prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention.
2480 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
For passing a detention order based on subjective
satisfaction, the answer of the aforesaid aspects and points
must be against the prospective detenu. The absence of
application of mind to the pertinent and proximate material
and vital matters would show lack of statutory satisfaction
on the part of the detaining authority.”
(Emphasis supplied)
56. Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gang-
chart, it is abundantly clear that the said gang-chart was approved
by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-
printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete
non-application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17
of the Rules of 2021 respectively. At the cost of repetition, we would
like to reiterate that the recommending, forwarding, and approving
authority are not mere rubber-stamping entities.
57. The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart
without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with
the Rules of 2021. Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR
is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at
pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of
safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference,
truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
58. The High Court of Allahabad in Sanni Mishra v. State of U.P.,
reported as 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975, came down heavily on
the police authorities for the manner in which gang charts were
being prepared, as well as the lack of application of mind by the
District Magistrate in approving them. The Court laid down specific
directions for the preparation of gang-charts prior to registration
of an FIR under the Act of 1986. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“22. In view of the above, this court lays down following
directions for preparation of gang-chart before lodging FIR
under the Gangster Act, 1986:
(i) Date of filing of chargesheet under base case must be
mentioned in Column-6 of the gang-chart except in cases
under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2481
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(ii) While forwarding or approving the gang-chart, competent
authorities must record their required satisfaction by writing
in clear words, not by signing the printed/typed satisfaction.
(iii) There must be material available for the perusal of
the court which shows that the District Magistrate before
approving the gang-chart had conducted a joint meeting
with the District Police Chief and held a due discussion
for invocation of the Gangster Act, 1986.”
(Emphasis supplied)
59. We also deem it necessary to make certain observations regarding
the investigation conducted pursuant to the approval of the gang-
chart and the registration of the subject FIR under the Act of 1986
respectively. Rule 20 mandates that, during the course of investigation,
evidence pertaining to the elements of economic, material, and
worldly benefits must be specifically collected. Upon being satisfied
that credible, substantial, and logically coherent evidence has
been compiled in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the
Additional Superintendent of Police shall forward the report to the
Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police for sanction.
60. In the present case, the sanction order merely states that, based
on the examination of the evidence collected, the accused were
found to be involved in the commission of offences under the IPC by
forming a gang with the objective of deriving economic and monetary
benefits, and that a prima facie case exists for filing a chargesheet
under Section(s) 2 and 3 of the Act of 1986.
61. The materials gathered during the investigation are reflected in the
chargesheet, reproduced hereinabove, and comprise the statements
of six witnesses – namely, the Inspector-in-Charge, P.S. Naini, two
constables posted at the same station, and the complainants in
base FIRs No. 726/2017 and 244/2017. The statement of the above-
mentioned witnesses does not add to what has already been stated
in the base FIRs. It cannot be gainsaid that the materials garnered
during the investigation only ignite conjectures and surmises, and
do not make out a prima facie case to be proceeded against the
appellant under the Act of 1986. At the stage of forwarding and
approving the gang-chart, the competent authorities are under the
2482 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
obligation to record their satisfaction that a case for action under
the Act of 1986 is made out, and the gang-chart and other records
should reflect such satisfaction.
62. The impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned order
clearly bring about a situation which is an abuse of the process of
the court which makes the interference of this Court necessary. We
are of a firm view that continuation of criminal proceedings against
the appellant herein would result in undue harassment when there is
no material against him and will result in the abuse of process of law.
63. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 2589/2025, vide order dated
19.04.2024 directed the respondent-State to postulate necessary
parameters/guidelines for the purpose of invoking provisions of
the Act of 1986. In compliance of the same, the Government of
Uttar Pradesh vide Office Memorandum/Circular No. 4619/Chha-
Pu-9-2024-1867437 dated 02.12.2024 identified certain shortcomings
of the existing paraphernalia and introduced certain directions to
correct the same alongwith a 29-points Checklist.
64. In light of the foregoing, we direct the concerned authorities to adhere
to the aforementioned guidelines and comply to the Checklist, in both
letter and spirit. In view of the facts of the present case at hand, we
would like to inject thrust into the Guidelines dated 02.12.024, and
also subsume the following portions of the Guidelines as a part of
this judgment. They read as follows:
“(1) Provisions of the Act be applied only when gangster
commits the crime by violence, threat or show of violence
or intimidation or coercion etc. alone or group with the
object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue
temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself
or any other person.
xxx
(3) Attested copy of the Gang Register, maintained at
Police Station, be also enclosed with gang-chart. Also
the criminal details collected by DCRB and CCTNS/ICJS
be enclosed.
xxx
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2483
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(8) On receiving the case file at the office of the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate, again end to
end perusal of all the facts be made and this be ensured
according to rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules 2021 that only after
being satisfied by holding a joint meeting with the Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police, gang-
chart be approved by the Police Commissioner/District
Magistrate.
(9) After preparing the gang chart and getting the same
approved and after thorough investigations, legal scrutiny
and in addition to full compliance of the above-mentioned
Government Orders regarding other relevant proceedings,
as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules 2011, it should also be
ensured to maintain a register for entry of the resolutions
of the Joint Meetings of the District Magistrate/the
Police Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of Police/
Superintendent of Police. In addition to the above, the
Police Commissioner/Senior Superintendent of Police /
Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate and
Nodal Officer, while appending their signatures on the
gang-chart shall also ensure to mention the date below
their signatures.
(10) It should be shown to the satisfaction of the competent
authorities that they have applied their mind not only on
the gang chart but also on the documents/papers attached
with the gang-chart.
xxx
(13) Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 2021 provides for the
forwarding of gang charts by the Additional Superintendent
of Police. Therefore, as per rules, under Rule 16(1) of
the Rules, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Nodal
Officer) should record his satisfaction in writing regarding
the chart.
(14) As per Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 2021, the District Police
Officer, Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent
of Police, after studying the submission of the Additional
Superintendent of Police under Rule 16(1) shall send the
2484 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
same to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police,
regarding his satisfaction for approval of the gang chart.
(15) As per Rule 17(2) of the Rules, 2021, signatures on
gang chart pre-printed on rubber stamp are prohibited.
Accordingly, the approval shall be recorded on the gang
chart by the competent authority only after proper use of
independent mind and pre-printed rubber stamp shall not
be used.
xxx
(17) In case, the Prosecution Officer points out any
illegality/irregularity in conducting investigations or with
regard to the conclusion of the documents collected during
investigation proceedings, after getting done disposal
of the same, as the prosecution officer is satisfied that
illegality/irregularity there is no remaining, only thereafter,
the Additional Superintendent of Police shall forward the
above-said records to the Senior Superintendent of Police
or Superintendent of Police for approval under Rule 20(4)
of the Rules, 2021.
(18) Under Rule 26 (1) of the Rules, 2021, as the case
may be, whenever, the above-said Charge-sheet is sent
before Commissioner/Senior the Police Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police, for granting the necessary
approval under Rule 20, they, unavoidably, shall review
the entire record.
(19) As per Rule 36 of the Rules, 2021, thorough
investigations should be conducted regarding movable
and immovable properties of the gang and the source
of acquisition of the same. If evidence related to the
possession over any land by the gang is required to be
collected, the Investigating Officer may collect the evidence
from the revenue records and the Revenue Officer.
xxx
(26) District Police Incharge should carefully peruse all
the facts and evidence collected during the investigation
and only thereafter approval be given for filing of charge-
sheet/final report in the concerned Court.”
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2485
Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
F. CONCLUSION
65. We are convinced that the continuation of Special Sessions Trial
No. 54 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 850 of 2018 registered at P.S.
Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh will be nothing but abuse of
the process of the law.
66. In the result, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The
impugned judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 whereby the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the application under
Section 482 of the CrPC, preferred by the appellant for quashing of
the impugned proceedings; and rejection of the application preferred
by the appellant for quashing of non-bailable warrants vide order
dated 28.02.2023 and 14.03.2023 respectively are hereby set aside.
Resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 850/2018
dated 28.07.2018 registered at P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, Uttar
Pradesh are hereby quashed.
67. It is needless to clarify that the observations made in this judgment
are relevant only for the purpose of the subject FIR in question and
the consequential criminal proceedings. None of the observations
shall have any bearing on any of the pending criminal prosecutions
or any other proceedings.
68. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Gangster"Sign in to search