The Allahabad High Court quashed Gangsters Act proceedings against a Ghaziabad family, holding that the dispute arose from property and financial transactions rather than organised criminal activity. The Court also observed that former Ghaziabad Police Commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra appeared to have misused his authority in initiating the proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act against a family from Ghaziabad. The Court found that the allegations essentially arose from property-related and financial transactions and did not disclose the existence of an organised criminal gang. The decision, delivered on June 3 by Justice Vinod Diwakar, set aside the entire case against Rajendra Tyagi, his son Deepak Tyagi, and his daughter-in-law Lalita Tyagi, arising from FIR No. 101 of 2023 registered at Nandgram police station in Ghaziabad.
The High Court noted that the Gangsters Act was invoked on the basis of two FIRs connected to financial dealings involving land transactions, along with allegations of non-payment of money. It held that, even assuming the allegations of cheating or forgery to be correct, they would not automatically establish the statutory basis for treating the accused as members of, or persons operating, an organised gang under the Act.
ALSO READ: Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act ‘Draconian’ and ‘Unconstitutional’: Supreme Court
Explaining that the mere presence of predicate allegations is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Gangsters Act, the Court observed:
“The accused may have committed offences of cheating and forgery; however, the same does not amount to, and cannot be construed as, running an organised gang,”
The Court also found that the prosecution failed to place any reliable material before it demonstrating how an organised gang functioned, how it operated, or how its alleged proceeds were calculated. The judgment recorded that: “No such material has been produced before this court, except bald assertions,” and concluded that the mandatory ingredients were not established.
A particularly critical portion of the judgment addresses the role of the then Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, Ajay Kumar Mishra. After reviewing the record and affidavits, the Court said Mishra “appears to have misused and abused the authority vested in him“ by initiating Gangsters Act proceedings against the applicants.
The Court held that Mishra did not properly supervise the investigation and failed to provide effective supervisory control over subordinate officers. It further reasoned that, in matters of this kind, supervisory responsibility flows from the Commissioner’s office and cannot be avoided. The Court ultimately concluded that the proceedings approved under his supervision did not meet the requirements of the Gangsters Act, and could not justify the arrests that followed.
The judgment expressed particular concern regarding the arrest of Lalita Tyagi, a homemaker and daughter-in-law of Rajendra Tyagi. As per the Court, she was arrested the day after the Gangsters Act FIR was registered and remained in judicial custody for nearly 80 days.
The Court found that the charge sheets contained no specific allegation against her that would satisfy the ingredients of the Gangsters Act. It described her arrest as unlawful, stating her arrest was “patently illegal, arbitrary, and wholly unwarranted in law” and reflected a complete failure to apply established principles governing arrests.
Beyond the individual case, the Court made strong observations about policing practices in Uttar Pradesh. It held that the problem was not merely the Commissionerate system, but the recurrent misuse of police powers and the frequent over-application of stringent laws. The Court remarked that harsh provisions were often used against smaller offenders, while major organised criminal networks frequently did not face effective action.
The judgment further criticised administrative practices such as making arrests without due process, registering or suppressing FIRs for ulterior motives, and invoking preventive detention laws in an arbitrary manner. It warned that selective investigation and selective prosecution are contrary to the rule of law and weaken public confidence in governance.
While the Court refrained from imposing stricter consequences, it directed Ajay Kumar Mishra now serving as Inspector General of Police, Prayagraj Range to remain “vigilant and circumspect” and to carry out duties with balanced judgment, institutional restraint, and strict compliance with law.
For these reasons, the High Court quashed the Gangsters Act proceedings in their entirety.
Case Title: Rajendra Tyagi and 2 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
