Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33284-DB Reservd Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4223 of 2025 Petitioner :- Priyanshu Mishra @ Golu Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for the following main reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 29.4.2025 lodged by the opposite party no.4 in Case Crime No.0119 of 2025 Under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act Police Station-Patti, District- Pratapgarh contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition so far it relates to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 29.4.2025 lodged by the opposite party no.4 in Case Crime No.0119 of 2025 Under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act Police Station-Patti, District-Pratapgarh contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition." 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the gang chart is signed in a routine casual manner without application of mind by putting signatures by all the authorities under the printed proforma. His second submission is that it is a single case against the petitioner and, hence, his name should not have been included in the gang chart. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Farhana vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCCOnline SC 159. 4. We have perused the record of the case with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. We find that all the authorities have applied their mind and recorded their satisfaction and only thereafter put their signatures, therefore, it cannot be said that under the printed proforma, the authorities have put in their signatures. 5. So far as next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, as per the base case, petitioner has killed a furniture businessman only to gain financial benefits. It is a contract killing committed by the petitioner along with his other gang members. Hence, even from a perusal of the gang chart, it cannot be said that only because of a single case, petitioner's name has been included in the gang chart. The offence in the base case is very serious, which has been committed by the gang of which, petitioner is a member. We have also gone through the judgment in the case of Farhana (supra), and we find that the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In view of aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. . [Brij Raj Singh,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench