New Delhi, May 23 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday said the role of probe agencies was strictly to conduct an impartial investigation and it was for the court to determine an accused's innocence or guilt.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings stemming from an FIR lodged in July 2018 at Allahabad under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

Also Read | West Bengal SSC Recruitment 'Scam': Calcutta High Court Asks Teachers To Shift Protest Venue, Restricts Participants to 200.

"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," the bench said.

It said contents of the chargesheet reflected a "casual and cavalier attitude" on the part of the investigating agency, as it disclosed nothing beyond what was stated in the FIR.

Also Read | COVID-19 Warning: Delhi Government Issues Advisory, Directs Hospitals To Step Up Coronavirus Preparedness.

The bench said it remained obscure how the investigating authorities could assert that the alleged offences under Section 2 and 3 of the Act stands "proved" against the appellant.

"We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be 'proved'," it said.

The bench went on, "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."

The top court's verdict came on appeals filed by one Vinod Bihari Lal who challenged the April 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court.

The high court had rejected his application for quashing of the proceedings in the case.

It also rejected his application for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued against him by the special judge (Gangster Act) in the case.

The apex court said that in view of the vague and general allegations levelled in the 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," it said.

The bench referred to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.

It said Rule 17 mandates that competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart and it unequivocally prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, making it impermissible for the authority to mechanically affix its signature.

The top court referred to the underlying objective of the prohibition, which was to ensure that the competent authority undertook a conscious application of mind, than just 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," it said.

It said Rule 5(3)(a) stipulated 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.

The bench said in this case, there was nothing on record to indicate that a joint meeting was held prior to approval of the gang-chart.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)