Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 960

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Lal Mohd. and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2593 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6607 of 2023]
Decided On : 14-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohammad Aslam , AOR Mr. Shahid Azad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shoaib, Adv. Mr. Mohd Asif Rander, Adv. Mr. Manoharan Vv, Adv. Mr. Ashraf Yusuf Khan, Adv. Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv. Mr. Mateen Ahmad, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Anti-Social Activity - Mere involvement of accused appellants in a demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, however serious, does not ipso facto transform participants into a ''gang'' without evidence of organized and continuous criminal activity.
(2) Curtailment of Personal liberty - Any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumption, or oppressive - Constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions is invoked.

Headnote:
(A) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) read with Sections 2(b) and 2(c) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Allegation of inciting mob violence - FIR - Allegation of inciting mob violence - Dismissal of quashing application by High Court - Prosecution of appellants under UP Gangsters Act satisfies statutory thresholds prescribed under the Act, when it is based entirely on a single FIR in which appellants were already arrested and released on bail - A group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activities enumerated in Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein - Impugned FIR reveals crucial deficiencies and fundamental flaws - It merely refers to an isolated incident involving allegations of vandalism - Absence of any subsequent criminal acts or pattern of organized criminal behavior between foundational FIR and preparation of gang chart demonstrates that this single criminal incident, regardless of its severity, does not constitute sustained pattern of activities - Impugned FIR contains mere conjectural statement, neither corroborated nor substantiated by facts available on record - FIR's narrative suggests a reactive response to instigation caused by an inflammatory religious post rather than premeditated gang activity - 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 stringent requirements for establishing gang membership. (Paras 9, 14, 16 and 17)
(B) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Allegation of inciting mob violence - FIR - Dismissal of quashing application by High Court - Whole incident appears to have been triggered by incendiary social media post made by a person tending to defile religious sentiments of appellants and other co-accused rather than by calculated gang objectives of securing material advantages or establishing territorial control - FIR does not demonstrate any pattern of offending group engaging in enumerated anti-social activities beyond this single incident, thereby failing to establish sustained criminal enterprise that UP Gangsters Act is designed to address - Mere involvement of accused appellants in a demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, however serious, does not ipso facto transform participants into a 'gang' without evidence of organized and continuous criminal activity - Impugned FIR fails to distinguish adequately between roles of nominated accused persons - Afterthought application of UP Gangsters Act in present case, in absence of any subsequent criminal conduct of appellant, bears hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives - Impugned FIR and all proceedings consequential thereto stand quashed. (Paras 18, 19, 22 and 30)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Personal liberty - Curtailment of - Any procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumption, or oppressive - Article 21 of Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law - Constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions is invoked - While State has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with statutory purpose - Power conferred upon State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play - 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 - Materials relied upon must establish reasonable nexus between accused and alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility - When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions. (Paras 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal by special leave, arises out of the final judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2023, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023, whereby the High Court dismissed Writ Petition filed by appellants seeking quashing of First Information Report in CC No. 132 of 20234 dated 30th April, 2023, under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 19865, lodged at Police Station Khargupur, District-Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.
Findings of Court:
Observations and analysis on foundational FIRs are strictly circumscribed to limited purpose of evaluating impugned FIR under UP Gangsters Act and will not have any bearing on 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 Courts concerned.
Result : Appeal allowed. FIR quashed.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal by special leave, arises out of the final judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2023¹ [Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”] passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad² [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 Report³ [For short ‘FIR’] in CC No. 132 of 2023⁴ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned FIR’] dated 30th April, 2023, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986⁵ [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘UP Gangsters Act’] lodged at Police Station Khargupur, District-Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

4. The factual background, essential for the disposal of the instant appeal, is as follows:

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 2022⁶ [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, 1860⁷ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013⁸ [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2013’] at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, a second FIR, bearing CC No. 296 of 2022⁹ [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 t