Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 324

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Jay Kishan and Others – Appellants
A1: Jay Kishan
A2: Kuldeep Katara
A3: Krishna Katara
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
R1: The State of Uttar Pradesh
R2: Commissioner of Police, Agra
R3: Station House Officer, Police Station Bamrauli Katara
R4: Vikas Rana, Station House Officer
R5: Dr. D.V. Sharma
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. of 2025] [Diary No. 23042 of 2024]
Decided On : 12-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anu Sawhney, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Satpal Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kr. Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Giri, AOR Mr. Yash Giri, Adv. Mr. Anuj Shukla, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kalra, Adv.

The court emphasized that allegations must meet a serious threshold for invoking the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities Act, quashing an FIR based on insufficient grounds.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 3 - Quashing of FIR - High Court dismissed the Writ Petition for quashing FIR under the Act, alleging involvement in criminal activities - Appellants contended allegations were civil in nature and misused the Act - Court found FIR lacked sufficient basis for invoking the Act, quashing it. (Paras 4, 28, 30)

(B) Criminal Procedure - FIR - The court emphasized the need for a stringent standard when invoking penal statutes, particularly in cases involving allegations of anti-social activities. (Paras 20, 24)

Facts of the case:
The FIR was registered against the appellants alleging their involvement in criminal activities under the Act, based on three predicate FIRs related to property disputes. The appellants argued these were civil matters mischaracterized as criminal. (Paras 5-7)

Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations insufficient to justify the invocation of the Act, quashing the FIR and setting aside the High Court's judgment. (Paras 28, 30)

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted anti-social activities under the Act and the appropriateness of invoking the Act based on the nature of the underlying disputes. (Paras 9, 10, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR did not meet the threshold for invoking the Act, emphasizing the need for serious allegations and strict construction of penal statutes. (Paras 20, 24, 26)

Result: Appeal allowed; FIR quashed.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

1. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave, as prayed for, granted.

4. The present appeal arises out of the Final Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”)¹ [2024 AHC 8159 DB] passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition² [Abbreviated to “CRLMWP”] No. 19541/2023, whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants for quashing the First Information Report³ [Abbreviated to “FIR”] being CC⁴ [Abbreviation for “Case Crime”] No. 0092 of 2023, under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) lodged at Police Station - Bamrauli Katara, District - Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

BACKGROUND:

5. The FIR impugned before the High Court came to be registered against the appellants at the instance of the Station House Officer, Police Station - Bamrauli Katara on 26.11.2023 alleging, inter alia, that the appellants, being members of a gang led by Appellant No. 1⁵ [Hereinafter referred to as “A1”] were involved in the following three criminal cases: (1) CC No. 119/2022 under Sections 395/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁶ [Hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”], (2) CC No. 58/2023 under Sections 420/406/120B/504/506 of the IPC and (3) CC No. 60/2023 under Sections 120B/420/406/506 of the IPC. Thus, they were liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under the Act.

6. The FIR further narrated that the gang had a criminal history and with a view to impose a restriction on the activities of the said gang, the FIR was being registered after obtaining prior approval of the Gang Chart from the Commissioner of Police, Agra.

7. The appellants assailed the FIR by way of the captioned criminal writ petition before the High Court on the premise that three predicate FIRs are related to the property dispute between two families and the allegations made are civil in nature and hence, the proceedings under the Act were liable to be quashed.

8. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and granted liberty to apply for anticipatory bail/bail, while clarifying that it had not adjudicated the contentions raised therein.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations in the CCs, basis which provisions of the Act had been invoked against the appellants, were civil in nature. It was urged that the allegations therein did not relate to any anti-social activity, and that a purely civil dispute was being given a criminal colour by the de-facto complainant. As an example, it was submitted that for the same property and on the same cause of action, despite Civil Suit No. 1380/2022 pending, CC No. 60/2023 has been registered against the appellants.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that CC No. 58/2023 was lodged by Respondent No. 5⁷ [Hereinafter referred to as “R5”] alleging that he wanted to purchase the land of the appellants and had paid an advance amount of Rs. 54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Four Lakhs) to the appellants, however, the appellants refused to execute the Sale Deed in his favour. The appellants refuted such allegation and countered that sale consideration was in fact decided as Rs. 1,54,40,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Four Lakhs and Forty Thousand). As R5 paid only Rs. 54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Four Lakhs) and wanted to pay the balance amount later, hence the Sale Deed was not executed. The Police’s Inquiry Report also finds that the sale did not get completed due to non-payment of full consideration. It was stated that appellants are ready to return the advance payment, and that a Civil Suit filed by the appellants with respect to this very transaction is pending.

11. Apropos CC No. 60/2023, learned counsel submitted that this case was lodged by R5’s