HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10561 of 2026 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Srivastava, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner- Shivam has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the impugned FIR dated 20.03.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Station House Officer, P.S.- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun and registered as Case Crime No. 0025f 2026, under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Kuthaund, District- Jalaun. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned FIR submits that since the decision taken by the State-respondents to lodge criminal prosecution against petitioner under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is itself illegal, unjust and arbitrary, therefore, the criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant to the consequential impugned FIR cannot be sustained in law and fact. As such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court. 5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of Court to the document occurring at Page 41 of the paper-book. With reference to the aforesaid document, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that since there was no joint meeting of minds before a decision was taken to lodge criminal prosecution against petitioner under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule 5(3)(a) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shivam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 stands infringed. As such, the decision so taken by the State-respondents to lodge criminal prosecution against petitioner under aforementioned Act is unsustainable in law and fact. 6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that perusal of the document appended at page 41 of the paper-book, will go to show that no reason has been recorded therein on the basis of which, it was concluded by State-respondents that criminal prosecution of petitioner is unwarranted under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 7. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Kamalveer Singh v. State of UP, 2025 SCC Online, Allahabad 3141, wherein the Court has held that there must be a joint meeting of minds and secondly, specific reason should be recorded as to why criminal prosecution of an accused under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is warranted. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner thus, submits that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 to 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned AGA with reference to the instructions received by him contends that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition, are not borne out from the record. Learned AGA has placed before Court the memo relating to the joint meeting of officers held on 19.03.2026. On basis thereof, he submits that a joint meeting was held and further, clear and categorical reason has been recorded on the basis of which a conclusion was drawn by State-respondents that criminal prosecution of petitioner under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the above premise, the learned AGA would thus, submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. 9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 to 3 and upon perusal of record and CRLP No. 10561 of 2026 2 considering the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to present writ petition, as noted hereinabove, we find that the same is also borne out from the Case Diary itself which we have perused. 11. We do not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain the present writ petition. As a result, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 12. It is accordingly, dismissed. 13. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. May 12, 2026 Rama Kant CRLP No. 10561 of 2026 3 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad