JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. 2. Facts of Writ Petition No. 16983 of 2022 is being referred to for the sake of convenience. 3. Petitioners by the instant writ petition, seek quashing of FIR bearing Case Crime No. 0424 of 2022 lodged under Section 3(1) of the The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (For short ‘Gangster Act’) at Police Station-Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. The FIR came to be lodged by the In-charge Inspector P.S. Bhognipur, wherein, the second petitioner has been shown as the gang leader along with ten other members of the gang, including, first and third petitioners. Against the second petitioner/gang leader three base cases have been included in the gang-chart, whereas, against the first and second petitioners one base case have been shown. In Writ Petition No. 18326 of 2022, the petitioner is at serial no. 6 of the gang-chart and two cases have been shown against him. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioners, along with other members, are operating as a gang and have committed offence under Section 302 IPC and other economic offences on the basis of forged and manufactured documents. They indulged in antisocial activities, thereby, creating fear and terror amongst the public; it is alleged that due to fear of the gang no member of the public is prepared to come forward and depose against the gang leader and gang members. Police report (charge-sheet) has been filed in the base cases against the petitioners and from the input collected by the Investigating Officer, it has become incumbent in public interest to prosecute the petitioners under the Gangster Act so as to prevent them from indulging in antisocial activities or committing further organized crime. 5. The first petitioner, has been shown as a gang member, claims to be qualified, having B.Tech (Mechanical) degree and a degree in Law, and is aged about 27 years. The second petitioner is the gang leader, claims to be a practising lawyer at District Court Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, for the last 20 years, and the third petitioner is a gang member. 6. The second petitioner is the gang leader, claims to be a practising lawyer at District Court Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, for the last 20 years, and the third petitioner is a gang member. 6. The following cases have been registered against the second petitioner/gang leader :- Crime Case No. 98 of 2022 under Section 302, 394, 504, 506, 34, 120B IPC, P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, Case Crime No. 190 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat & Case Crime No. 173 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that registration of the impugned FIR rests on the base case noted in the gang-chart. It is urged that before lodging of the impugned FIR, the mandatory provisions of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (for short ‘Gangster Rules), in particular, Rules, 5, 8, 10 and 12 have not been followed in its true spirit, further, it is urged that petitioners would not be covered within the definition of ‘gang’ as defined under Section 2(b) of Gangster Act. 8. It is further submitted that in Case Crime No. 98 of 2022, the second petitioner is not nominated, however, during investigation the name of the first and second petitioner surfaced. In case Crime No. 173 of 2019, on further investigation a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the gang leader. In case Case Crime No. 190 of 2021, the second petitioner is nominated, wherein, it is alleged that the accused, therein, are trying to procure the property of the informant on the basis of forged document. 9. In case Crime No. 173 of 2019 and Case Crime No. 190 of 2021 the second petitioner has obtained bail/anticipatory bail. It is further urged that sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 mandates that the gang-chart would not be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the officials has not been complied. 10. 9. In case Crime No. 173 of 2019 and Case Crime No. 190 of 2021 the second petitioner has obtained bail/anticipatory bail. It is further urged that sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 mandates that the gang-chart would not be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the officials has not been complied. 10. It is submitted that in the instant case the District Magistrate/competent authority granted approval without applying his judicial mind in the joint meeting with Superintendent of Police; the approval was granted on a printed proforma, whereas, Rule 17 prohibits recommendations on a printed proforma forwarded by the Nodal Officer and approved by the Superintendent of Police, as well as, the Competent Authority. It is urged that the approval violates Rule 17 of the Gangster Rules. 11. Learned State Counsel opposing the writ petition submits that the petition lacks merit; FIR cannot be quashed on mere procedural irregularity; it is not being disputed by the petitioners that in the base case they have been charge-sheeted for offences covered under the Gangster Act; the scope of quashing of the impugned FIR lodged under a special statute is miniscule; the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 12. Rival submissions fall for consideration. 13. Gangster Act was enacted to make special provision for the prevention of, and for coping with gangsters and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The Gangster Act is a special statute, as well as, a penal statute. 14. The Gangster Act seeks to punish declared criminals who have deliberately chosen the life of crime. The activities of these professional perpetrators of organized crimes, violence and orgy has a far more baneful effect on the health and morals of the society and its people. If the activities of such recidivists are subjected to same punishment as that other ordinary criminals, the confidence of public in the efficacy and efficiency of State Administration is bound to shake (vide; Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P., AIR 1987 (All) 235 (All HC,FB). 15. As per Section 20 of Gangster Act, provisions of the Act or any Rule made thereunder shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment. 15. As per Section 20 of Gangster Act, provisions of the Act or any Rule made thereunder shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Gangster Act and in supersession of all Government Orders and notifications, duly notified on 27 December 2021, the Gangster Rules to provide for speedy and transparent procedure to punish gangster and to establish efficient recovery system in respect of property of gangsters and incidental benefits acquired by them through crimes and acts related therewith. 16. Chapter-I of the Gangster Rules defines ‘Base Cases’, ‘Form’ ‘Nodal Officer’ and ‘worldly’, which reads thus: 2. (1)…… a…… b. “Base Cases” means the cases on the basis of which a gang-chart has been prepared with the intention of taking action against the gang under the Act; c…... d…… e. “Form” means the form appended to these rules; f. “Nodal Officer” means a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Police Act, 1861 (Act no. 5 of 1861) and the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, 1861, for the time being in force, designated by the district head of Police, the Commissioner of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, to prepare the gang chart under the Act; g….. h. “Worldly” includes illegal audacious acts done for the sake of temporal gratification. 17. Chapter-II of Gangster Rules lays down ‘Conditions of Criminal Liability of Gangs’. Rule 3(1) provides that the offences mentioned in Sub-sections (i) to (xxv) of clause (b) of section 2 of the Gangster Act shall be punishable under the Gangster 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 purposes of obtaining any unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary or other advantage to himself or to any other person. 18. 18. Section 2(b) defines Gang-The requirement of ‘Gang’ are that (i) Gang means a group of persons; (ii) these persons might act either singly or collectively; (iii) such action is to be associated with violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion or otherwise; (iv) such action must be with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue advantage (temporal, pecuniary, material or otherwise for himself or for any other person). 19. The expression ‘public order’ is of wide connotation and signifies the state of tranquillity prevailing among the members of political society as a result of the internal regulation of the Government. (Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 ). Thus, public order means even tempo of the life of the community taking within its fold even a specified locality and a substantial section of the society. (Nagen Murmu vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 844 ). In other words, the word public order is virtually synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquillity. The incidents of breach of public order would include the legislation to regulate the use of sound amplifiers in public places, forcing entry into, schools, setting fire to school building, public property, public gambling, manufacture and distribution of spurious and adulterated liquor, drugs, attempting to throw a bomb at the Police etc. are all connected with public order. (Bablu Mitra vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 197 ). 20. Prima facie, a single incident relating to a single individual based on personal enmity may not disturb public order, and may remain confined to ‘law and order’ problem but it is not always necessary. The basic question for determination is whether the incident disturbs the public order or law and order, has to be determined on the basis of the cumulative effect on the facts and circumstances of each and every case. It rather depends on the reaction of the public to the happening and the consequential terror spread by the culprits and the atmosphere surcharged thereby. The distinction between public order and law and order was concisely explained by the Supreme Court in Jadunandan Sha vs. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, (1983) 4 SCC 301 . 21. It rather depends on the reaction of the public to the happening and the consequential terror spread by the culprits and the atmosphere surcharged thereby. The distinction between public order and law and order was concisely explained by the Supreme Court in Jadunandan Sha vs. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, (1983) 4 SCC 301 . 21. Under the Gangster Act no distinction has been made between public order and law and order, it is not the status of criminal but the act which is made punishable under the Gangster Act. The activities of gangsters for offences under the Gangster Act, since they pose grave threat to the even tempo of the society, therefore, called for sterner and more deterrent punishment and speedier hike and early booking. The Gangster Rules thereafter mandates that although a person may not be physically present on the place of occurrence yet he may be roped in under the provisions of the Gangster Act in relation to that occurrence on the facile ground that he is a gangster. Thus, there is no need of any overt and positive act of the person intended to be apprehended at the place. It is enough to prove his active complicity which has a bearing on the crime. (Vide: Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra)). 22. The expression ‘or otherwise’ as used in the definition of gang can be read conjunctively or disjunctively. If read conjunctively, the words ‘or otherwise’, in law, when used in a general phrase, following an enumeration of particulars, are commonly interpreted in a restricted sense, as referring to such other matters as are kindred to the classes before mentioned. The word “or” in “or otherwise” is a disjunctive that marks an alternative which generally corresponds to the words “either”. An interoperation of the general words “or otherwise” limiting them to the matters and things of the same kind as the previous words (violence, intimidation, coercion) would make the general words “or otherwise” following the preceding specific words, redundant. These words “or otherwise” are not words of limitation, but of extension so as to cover all possible offences. The word “otherwise” is, therefore, not to be read “ejusdem generis” with the other instances of violence mentioned in the earlier part of sub-section. 23. These words “or otherwise” are not words of limitation, but of extension so as to cover all possible offences. The word “otherwise” is, therefore, not to be read “ejusdem generis” with the other instances of violence mentioned in the earlier part of sub-section. 23. Further, on perusal of the offences which have been included in the definition of Gang includes offences under Chapter-XVII of Indian Penal Code which include the offence of theft under Section 378, offences under Section 403 and the related sections dealing with criminal misappropriation of property, Section 405 and allied sections deals with the crime of criminal breach of trust, dishonest misappropriation of property. Section 410 and related sections concern stolen property, Section 420 and related sections deal with offences of cheating which only involve deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement to a person or his property. It is evident from the provisions included within the definition of gang do not require existence of force or violence. Similarly, offences under Section 3 of U.P. Public Gambling Act may not necessarily involve the use of force. Thus, the word ‘otherwise’ has been employed disjunctively in the definition of gang and cannot be read as “ejusdem generis”, with other incidents of violence mentioned in the earlier part of this sub-section (Vide: Verneet Kumar (supra)). 24. Rule 4 of the Gangster Rules clarifies that persons at the scene of incident or direct participation in the incident is not necessary. It is further provided that it is not necessary to commit any offence together with all members of the said gang. If a member of that gang has committed any offence which comes within the purview of the Gangster Act, along with any other member or gang leader, they may be presumed to be a gang. 25. Rule 4 is extracted: 4. If a member of that gang has committed any offence which comes within the purview of the Gangster Act, along with any other member or gang leader, they may be presumed to be a gang. 25. Rule 4 is extracted: 4. (1) Presence at the scene of incident or direct participation in the incident is not necessary: For committing the criminal act defined in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act, if any person organizes the whole gang or abets or aids the gang leader or member of that gang or provides protection and shelter to any such person, with the knowledge that the person in question is a gang leader or member of a gang or involved in committing/aiding/abetting a criminal act, before or after the commission of such activity, then such a person shall also be liable under the provisions of the Act even though the whole gang had not participated in the incident at the time of commission of the said incident or was not present at the scheme of the incident. (2) It is not necessary to commit any offence together: For a person to be a member of a gang under the Act, it is not necessary for him to have committed any offence together with all the members of the said gang. If a member of that gang has committed any offence which comes within the purview of the Act, along with any other member or gang leader, they may be presumed to be a gang: Provided that no such person shall be included in gang who has committed a few offences which do not come within the purview of the Act, along with a member three years or earlier. 26. All the anti-social activities mentioned in the definition of gang are not covered as offences but are certainly unlawful activities having serious reflection on the society, though not termed as offences. Thus, the law never required that offences must have been committed in past or involve use of violence for prosecution under the Gangster Act. Further, as per definition of gang, the Gangster Act seeks to prevent and punish activities which may result in undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage to the gangsters or any other person and which may or may not necessarily, involve the use of violence. (Verneet Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2009 (1) ALL CrJ 377). 27. Further, as per definition of gang, the Gangster Act seeks to prevent and punish activities which may result in undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage to the gangsters or any other person and which may or may not necessarily, involve the use of violence. (Verneet Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2009 (1) ALL CrJ 377). 27. Chapter-III of Gangster Rules lays down the principles related to Gang Chart. Rule-5 mandates that Incharge of a Police Station/Station House Officer/ Inspector shall prepare a Gang Chart (Form No. 1) mentioning the details of criminal activities of the gang. The Gang Chart will be presented to the district head of the Police after clear recommendation of the Additional Superintendent of Police mentioning the detailed activities in relation of all the persons of the said gang. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that the provisions contained therein shall be complied in respect of gang charts. The provision reads thus: 5. (1) To initiate proceedings under this Act, the concerned Incharge of Police General Rules 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. (2) 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. 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 case 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 (ICJS) portal and Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS). 28. Rule 6 provides that while preparing the Gang Chart it shall be clearly mentioned, if the alleged act of the gang falls within the purview of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act along with relevant provisions, further, sub-rule (2) mandates that the Investigating Officer makes an endorsement to the effect that the accused is causing panic, alarm or terror in public, then evidence shall be collected in this regard. In addition to the above, a list of criminal history may be attached separately in the prescribed format. (Form No. 4) 29. Rule 10 mandates that records of base cases, would accompany the gang chart and Rule 11 mandates that the present status of all the accused, whether they are in jail or on bail or absconding, shall be clearly mentioned. Rule 13 mandates that while writing abstract below the gang chart and particulars of those officials shall be specifically mentioned. Rule 13 is extracted: 13. While writing the abstract below the gang-chart and particulars separately with the gang-chart, the particulars of those offences shall be specifically mentioned:- i. which have been committed for pecuniary, materialistic and temporal or similar benefits; or ii. which disturb the public order; or iii. Which are a ground for detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (Act no. 65 of 1980) 30. which disturb the public order; or iii. Which are a ground for detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (Act no. 65 of 1980) 30. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 15 provides that final decision as to whether to include or not to include the name of member of a gang in the gang and gang-chart shall be at the discretion of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate, as the case may be. 31. Rule 16 provides the manner and the recommendations to be made while forwarding the gang chart Rule 16 reads thus: 16. 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. “Throughly studies 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” (3) Resolution of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate: When the gang-chart is sent to be the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate along with all the Forms, all the facts will also be thoroughly perused by the Commissioner of Police/Districts 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. 32. Satisfaction of the competent authority only means that the competent authority must be in fact satisfy and not a dishonest satisfaction, which will be no satisfaction at all. The satisfaction contemplated by the Gangster Rule is satisfaction in point of fact on the materials placed before the competent authority. The satisfaction of the competent authority referred to under the Rule is not with respect to the allegations levelled against the gangster but the satisfaction is confined to those allegations that the accused can be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. Whatever may be the nature of charge against the accused, the satisfaction of the competent authority should be with regard to that the materials placed before him and the nature of the accused indulging in community antisocial activities. It is expedient to sanction prosecution under the Gangster Act. 33. The expression satisfied is much narrower than ‘application of mind’. The competent authority is not to apply his mind and satisfy himself as to whether the material placed before him would be sufficient for convicting the accused under the Gangster Act. The satisfaction is confined within a narrow domain based on the materials placed before the competent authority, the authorities forwarding the gang chart is satisfied that the accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. The satisfaction is confined within a narrow domain based on the materials placed before the competent authority, the authorities forwarding the gang chart is satisfied that the accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. The expression satisfaction is not satisfaction on evidence but a prima facie satisfaction based on the representations of the nodal authority and the district police that the accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. 34. Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority is bound to exercise its own independent mind while forwarding the gang chart and should not be on a pre-printed rubber seal gang chart. Rule 17 reads thus: 17 (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. 35. Rule 18 provides that gang chart shall be sent only in the manner as given in Form No. 1 of these rules. 36. Rule 17 and 18 would have to be read together. Gang chart has to be sent in the prescribed Form No. 1. The endorsement to be made by each of the authorities have also been specified in Rule 16. The rule itself prescribes and mandates a printed Form. Rule 17 merely mandates that the competent authority while approving the gang chart should not be swayed by the recommendation of the police authorities mechanically but should satisfy himself independently that the grounds for prosecution is made out. The satisfaction at that stage is subjective and does not rest upon any evidence. The competent authority has to satisfy that the materials placed with the gang chart calls for prosecution. The stage of collecting evidence follows thereafter. The scope of judicial review is miniscule, the accused cannot challenge the FIR without challenging the gang chart. The question as to whether the antisocial activities of the proposed accused is that of a gang or gangster is a matter of investigation. 37. Rule 22 clarifies and specifies that a single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act and a first information report must be registered on the basis of a single case. The question as to whether the antisocial activities of the proposed accused is that of a gang or gangster is a matter of investigation. 37. Rule 22 clarifies and specifies that a single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act and a first information report must be registered on the basis of a single case. Rule 22(1) reads thus: 22(1) A single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act, and First Information Report may be registered on the basis of a single case i.e., it is not mandatory that any criminal history must be recorded and alleged before registering an offence under the Act. 38. Further, sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 necessarily provides prosecution on certain class of cases, on a single offence which includes Section 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397 of Indian Penal Code out of the offences mentioned in sub-clause (i) or clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. 39. Rule 27 clarifies that if the accused are minors, and their age is less than 18 years, then they should not be included in the gang chart, however, the proviso to the Rule clarifies that if the act of juvenile falls under the category of offences mentioned in Rule 22 and his age is more than 16 years, then action can be taken against him. Rule 27 reads thus: 27. If the accused are minors, and their age is less than 18 years, then they should not be included in the gang-chart: Provided that if the act of a juvenile falls under the category of offences mentioned in rule 22 and his age is more than 16 years, then action can be taken against him under the relevant provisions of the Act, subject to the decision of the District Level Supervision Committee mentioned in rule 64. 40. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, the gang leader and the members of the gang have been charge-sheeted in the base cases shown in the gang chart. But that alone is not the basis for prosecution under Gangster Act, the Act provides for prosecution of such persons for engaging in anti-social activities which has been made an offence under the Gangster Act. But that alone is not the basis for prosecution under Gangster Act, the Act provides for prosecution of such persons for engaging in anti-social activities which has been made an offence under the Gangster Act. The gang leader claims to be a practising lawyer, one of the gang members is well educated, but that would not mean that they are not indulging in anti social activities for worldly gain. The Gangster Rules merely spells out the guiding principle to lodge prosecution. The steps of collecting evidence follows thereafter. 41. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no ‘discussion’ by the competent authority with the police officers before approving the gang chart would not be fatal to the prosecution of the petitioners. The expression ‘discussion’ has to be followed mandatorily by the competent authority in every case does not follow from reading of the Rule, though the rule employs the word ‘shall’. The Gangster Rule no where mandates the consequence of not following ‘discussion’ by the competent authority. In our opinion the rule mandating discussion is directory. It is left to the discretion of the competent authority, having regard to the material placed before him for approval of the gang chart. In a case, on the materials, the competent authority is convinced and prima facie satisfied that a case for prosecution is made out he may approve the gang chart bypassing discussion with the police officials. But in a case where the competent authority is not convinced or in two mind, on the material placed by the police authorities, the competent authority may necessarily decide to call for a discussion to prima facie satisfy himself that prosecution is warranted. The FIR that follows the approval of the gang chart cannot be faulted or quashed merely for want of discussion. 42. The purpose of the Gangster Act is to check the antisocial activities of gangster. The anti-social activity need not necessarily be violent. The court is not oblivious of the fact that for temporal and worldly gain, the modus operandi of a gangster can be effected on merely a phone call or through a messenger to intimidate or coerce a resident to part with property or demand ransom. There is no overt act of violence, but it tantamounts to organised antisocial activity. The court is not oblivious of the fact that for temporal and worldly gain, the modus operandi of a gangster can be effected on merely a phone call or through a messenger to intimidate or coerce a resident to part with property or demand ransom. There is no overt act of violence, but it tantamounts to organised antisocial activity. It is pleaded by the petitioners that in one of the base case, the complainant has given her affidavit to withdraw the case against the accused/gang member. The conduct of the complainant in handing over the affidavit to the petitioners could appear to be a voluntary act, but at the same time the act could be resting upon tacit threat, intimidation or coercion by the gang. It is to be gone into during investigation. The petitioners would have to face prosecution. 43. In view thereof, the writ petitions being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed.