It is most striking to note that while catching the bull by the horns, the Supreme Court while coming down heavily on the gross misuse in the application of Gangsters Act in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Lal Mohd & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors. in Criminal Appeal of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 811 that was pronounced recently on May 14, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has quashed an FIR that had been registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against former Nagar Panchayat Chairman Lal Mohd. and his son ruling emphatically that there was no material to support the allegation of organised crime. It must be noted here that the Apex Court very rightly held that the invocation of the Gangsters Act in such circumstances “would constitute a manifest abuse of the legal process and result in gross miscarriage of justice.” To put it differently, the top court has strongly warned against the most rampant misuse of stringent laws like the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 saying that such laws should not be used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In other words, it was also made indubitably clear by the top court that such laws must be invoked judiciously based on relevant considerations without acting as a tool for harassment.
Of course, what also needs to be taken into account is that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta passed this courageous judgment allowing the appeal that had been made against the May 3, 2023 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the appellants’ writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR. We thus see that the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that, “The present appeal by special leave, arises out of the final judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2023 (Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”), passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants seeking quashing of First Information Report (For short ‘FIR’) , in CC No. 132 of 2023 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned FIR’) dated 30th April, 2023, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘UP Gangsters Act’), lodged at Police Station Khargupur, District-Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the factual background envisages in para 4 that, “The factual background, essential for the disposal of the instant appeal, is as follows:
4.1 The appellants herein claim to be members of a political party in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Appellant No. 1 is a former two-time elected Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, and appellant No. 2 is the son of appellant No. 1.
4.2 On 10th October, 2022, one Rikki Modanwal made a post on a social media platform in which he allegedly used language perceived as defamatory towards a particular religion. In response, several believers of that religion (including the appellants herein) assembled outside the shop owned by Rikki Modanwal raising vociferous protests against the said social media post. The protests escalated into violence and acts of vandalism between two different religious groups. Multiple FIR(s) were registered on 11th October 2022, against the people involved in the aforesaid incidents. An FIR, bearing CC No. 294 of 2022 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘First FIR.’), was registered by Sonu Modanwal nominating 41 accused persons, which included the appellants herein, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307, 323, 504, and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2013’), at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, a second FIR, bearing CC No. 296 of 2022 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second FIR.’), was registered by Sub-Inspector Bhole Shankar on the same date, against members of both religious groups (including the appellants and Rikki Modanwal) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 353, and 427 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Act 2013, and Sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. As a sequel to the investigation into the FIRs registered in relation to the aforesaid incident, the appellants herein were arrested and then released on bail.
4.3 On 30th April, 2023, Arun Kumar Dwivedi, Inspector-in-charge, filed the impugned FIR against the appellants herein and 39 other accused, under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act alleging inter alia, that on 10th October, 2022, at around 8:00 P.M., a group of assailants, led by appellant No. 1, gathered at Rikki Modanwal’s shop in Subzi Mandi, Khargupur, armed with lathis and glass bottles. They reportedly hurled abuses, issued death threats, and vandalised the shop while protesting against the social media post that targeted a specific religious group. The incident led to fear in public, and disruption of law and order. A Gang Chart was prepared under the UP Gangsters Act and approval for registration of an FIR against the accused persons was granted by the District Magistrate vide sanction letter dated 29th April, 2023.
4.4 Aggrieved by the registration of impugned FIR invoking the provisions of the UP Gangsters Act, the appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by way of a criminal writ petition, seeking quashing of the said FIR and a direction to the concerned authorities to produce the gang chart, if any, prepared by them, on the basis of which Arun Kumar Dwivedi, Inspector-in-Charge, had lodged the impugned FIR. The High Court, vide judgment dated 3rd May, 2023, dismissed the said writ petition, which is assailed by the appellants herein in this appeal by special leave.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “The core issue, which is posed for the consideration of this Court in the present appeal is, whether the prosecution of the appellants under the UP Gangsters Act satisfies the statutory thresholds prescribed under the Act, when it is based entirely on a single FIR (Case Crime No. 294 of 2022), in which the appellants were already arrested and released on bail, and where no new act or omission has occurred between the date of registration of the First FIR i.e., 11th October, 2022, and the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023.”
Briefly stated, the Bench points out in para 15 that, “The impugned FIR dated 30th April, 2023, lodged by Inspector Arun Kumar Dwivedi, narrates that the appellants led an organised gang whose members, armed with lathis and glass bottles, attacked the shop owned by Vipin Modanwal and others over a social media post disparaging a specific religion, which created chaos, terror and disrupted public order.”
Notably, the Bench also points out in para 16 that, “A careful scrutiny of the impugned FIR reveals crucial deficiencies and fundamental flaws. The impugned FIR merely refers to an isolated incident that occurred on 10th October 2022, involving allegations of vandalism at Vipin Modanwal’s shop following disparaging comments made about a particular religious belief by Rikki Modanwal which the appellants follow. The absence of any subsequent criminal acts or pattern of organized criminal behavior between the foundational FIR (Case Crime No. 294 of 2022) registered on 11th October, 2022 and the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023 demonstrates that this single criminal incident dated 10th October, 2022, regardless of its severity, does not constitute a sustained pattern of activities.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench observes in para 17 that, “While the FIR alleges that, appellant No. 1, lead an ‘organized gang’ with numerous co-accused, it provides no substantive evidence of hierarchical structure, systematic planning, or coordinated criminal activities that would distinguish this group from a group of individuals involved in a spontaneous communal protest. The impugned FIR contains a mere conjectural statement, neither corroborated nor substantiated by the facts available on record. The impugned FIR’s narrative suggests a reactive response to instigation caused by an inflammatory religious post rather than premeditated gang activity. The mere listing of multiple accused persons without demonstrating their organizational roles, command structure, or evidence of prior or continued coordinated criminal activities fails to meet the stringent requirements for establishing gang membership.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 18 that, “The whole incident appears to have been triggered by the incendiary social media post made by Rikki Mondalwal tending to defile the religious sentiments of the appellants and other co-accused rather than by calculated gang objectives of securing material advantages or establishing territorial control. Furthermore, the FIR does not demonstrate any pattern of the offending group engaging in the enumerated anti-social activities beyond this single incident, thereby failing to establish the sustained criminal enterprise that the UP Gangsters Act is designed to address.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 19 that, “It is an undisputed fact that no new act or omission occurred between the registration of the first FIR on 11th October, 2022 and the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023. This temporal gap, devoid of any additional criminal activity, undermines the prosecution’s endeavour to demonstrate ongoing gang operations or escalating criminal behaviour that would justify the invocation of the UP Gangsters Act. Mere involvement of the accused appellants in a demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, however serious, does not ipso facto transform the participants into a ‘gang’ without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity. Moreover, the impugned FIR fails to distinguish adequately between the roles of the nominated accused persons.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 20 pointing out rightly that, “In the present case, the incident occurred on 10th October, 2022, and the appellants were granted bail in January, 2023, after the competent courts found no criminal history and only simple injuries resulting from the altercation. The gang chart was prepared and approved on 29th April, 2023, and the impugned FIR was registered on 30th April, 2023, sans any fresh or intervening conduct. This sequence indicates that the gang chart was manifestly a post-facto construction aimed at re-characterizing an already investigated and prosecuted communal altercation as an act of organised crime, without any new evidence to warrant such a serious escalation.”
It cannot be lost on us that the Bench points out in para 21 that, “Furthermore, the impugned FIR was registered coincidentally just 13 days after appellant No. 1’s daughter-in-law filed her nomination for the Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur on 17th April, 2023. The appellants’ representation dated 25th April, 2023 addressed to the UP-State Election Commission and the Party President, regarding the possibility of false implication under the UP Gangsters Act, preceded the actual registration of the FIR. This timing lends credence to their contention that the Act may have been weaponised for extraneous considerations.”
It is extremely significant to note that the Bench notes in para 22 that, “When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the UP Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made by one against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose. The afterthought application of the UP Gangsters Act in the present case, in absence of any subsequent criminal conduct of the appellant, bears the hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act’s legitimate objectives.”
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 23 that, “It is trite law that any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumption, or oppressive. This principle, firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence, forms the cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 24 that, “The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the State has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play.”
Most remarkably, the Bench underscores in para 25 propounding that, “It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 26 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “In the present case, the impugned FIR and the gang chart fail to meet this essential threshold, as they rest largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity as contemplated by the Act. With the trial in the previous FIR remaining inconclusive, compelling the appellants to undergo another prosecution under the UP Gangsters Act for the same set of allegations, would constitute a manifest abuse of the legal process and result in a gross miscarriage of justice.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 27 that, “Before concluding, we would like to make a reference to a recent Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2589 of 2025), whereby the State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to consider framing guidelines-cum-parameters which are to be followed before invoking provisions of the UP Gangsters Act. In compliance with that directive, the Uttar Pradesh State Government vide Office Memorandum Office Memorandum-Circular No. 4619, framed guidelines for invoking the provisions of the UP Gangsters Act, directing strict compliance with those guidelines, read with the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 framed under the UP Gangsters Act, regarding the preparation of the gang chart. The said guidelines have also been made part of a judgment in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 267.”
For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 28 stating that, “These guidelines were not placed on record by the appellants in the present case (as they were issued subsequent to the filing of this petition), however, upon a prima facie examination, it appears to us that the invocation of the UP Gangsters Act in the present matter would not withstand scrutiny even under these guidelines which emphasise the need for rigorous assessment of the gravity of underlying offences, established patterns of criminal activity, and proper verification of criminal antecedents before invoking the Act. The allegations in the present case fail to meet this rigour. However, we clarify that this observation is based purely on the facts of this case and not a definitive finding on the application of the guidelines, which were not subject to adversarial scrutiny in the present appeal.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 29 that, “Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the procedural and substantive thresholds prescribed under Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the UP Gangsters Act have not been adequately met in the present case. Hence, the impugned FIR dated 30th April, 2023, namely CC No. 132 of 2023, does not stand to scrutiny. The impugned judgment dated 3rd May, 2023, rendered by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023, stands set aside.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs in para 30 holding that, “The impugned FIR CC No. 132 of 2023 and all proceedings consequential thereto stand quashed. However, we deem it proper to clarify that our observations and analysis on the foundational FIRs are strictly circumscribed to the limited purpose of evaluating the impugned FIR under the UP Gangsters Act and will not have any bearing on the two pending FIRs, namely, CC No. 294 of 2022 and CC No. 296 of 2022, which shall be dealt with on their own merits by the Courts concerned.”
In addition, the Bench then also directs in para 31 holding that, “The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then draws the curtains of this robust judgment by holding succinctly in para 32 that, “Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
All told, we thus see that the Apex Court has made it manifestly clear that the invocation of Gangsters Act without evidence of organised crime is abuse of law. This definitely cannot be allowed to happen. This alone explains why the Apex Court so very commendably set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed the appellants’ writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR. It was thus laid down explicitly by the top court that the UP Gangster Act cannot be used as a tool of harassment and oppression especially when political motivations are suspected and cautioned very strongly against the routine invocation of such a stringent extraordinary legislation like the UP Gangsters Act. It thus certainly merits no reiteration that this must definitely be adhered to most strictly as directed most commendably by the Apex Court in this leading case! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
