Date of the Judgment: February 12, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 198
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can allegations of cheating and property disputes lead to charges under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in the case of Jay Kishan and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., where the appellants were accused of being members of a gang involved in property-related offenses. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the appellants, holding that the allegations, primarily civil in nature, did not warrant the application of the stringent Gangster Act. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR lodged on November 26, 2023, at Police Station – Bamrauli Katara, District – Agra, against Jay Kishan and others. The FIR alleged that the appellants were members of a gang led by Jay Kishan and were involved in three criminal cases:
✓ CC No. 119/2022 under Sections 395/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
✓ CC No. 58/2023 under Sections 420/406/120B/504/506 of the IPC
✓ CC No. 60/2023 under Sections 120B/420/406/506 of the IPC
The FIR stated that the gang had a criminal history and the registration was done after obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner of Police, Agra, to restrict their activities. The appellants challenged the FIR, arguing that the cases were related to a property dispute between two families and were civil in nature, thus not justifying proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022 (Date unspecified) | Civil Suit No. 1380/2022 is pending, related to the same property as CC No. 60/2023. |
| Date unspecified | Respondent No. 5 (R5) lodges CC No. 58/2023, alleging the appellants refused to execute a Sale Deed after receiving an advance of Rs. 54,00,000. |
| January 10, 2023 | Appellants execute an Exchange Deed with R5’s wife, leading to CC No. 60/2023 by R5’s wife. |
| Date unspecified | Appellants allegedly execute an Agreement to Sell the same property to Mr. Sunil Sharma. |
| Date unspecified | CC No. 119/2022 is lodged by Imran Khan, alleging the appellants took away his belongings and destroyed structures on a piece of land. |
| September 27, 2023 | Another case, CC No. 74/2023, is lodged against the appellants by Imran Khan. |
| November 26, 2023 | FIR being CC No. 0092 of 2023 is registered against the appellants under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. |
| January 17, 2024 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismisses the Writ Petition filed by the appellants. |
| February 12, 2025 | Supreme Court quashes the FIR namely CC No.0092/2023. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants initially filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition, granting the appellants the liberty to apply for anticipatory bail/bail, while clarifying that it had not adjudicated the contentions raised therein. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The relevant sections are:
Section 2(b) of the Act: Defines “Gang” as:
“Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities…
Section 2(c) of the Act: Defines “Gangster” as:
“Gangster” means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities.
These definitions are crucial in determining whether the actions of the appellants fall within the purview of the Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the interpretation of these definitions must align with the object and intent of the Act, especially when considering the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
✓ The allegations in the predicate cases were civil in nature and did not constitute any anti-social activity.
✓ CC No. 58/2023 was a result of a property transaction dispute where the appellants were ready to return the advance payment.
✓ CC No. 60/2023 pertained to an Exchange Deed that had been fully implemented, and a related Agreement to Sell had been cancelled.
✓ CC No. 119/2022 was lodged by a henchman of Respondent No. 5 (R5) over a property dispute, and the charge under Section 395 of the IPC had been dropped.
Arguments by Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh):
✓ The appellants were hardened criminals involved in extortion, fraudulent property dealings, and goondaism.
✓ They intimidated innocent and law-abiding persons in the area.
✓ The Commissioner of Police had granted approval for registering the FIR based on available materials, and a Gang Chart had been prepared and approved.
Arguments by Respondent No. 5:
✓ The predicate offenses in CCs No. 58/2023, 60/2023, and 119/2022 disclosed the commission of cognizable criminal offenses and were not civil in nature.
✓ The appellants used violence, threat, and coercion to disturb public order and gain pecuniary advantage.
✓ Civil suits do not exonerate the appellants from criminal liability, citing Iqbal Singh Marwah v Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 and Prem Raj v Poonamma Menon, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 483.
✓ Even a single case against a person can make him liable to be charged under the Act, as held in Shraddha Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514.
Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments
| Main Submission | Appellants’ Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Allegations |
✓ Allegations are civil in nature. ✓ No anti-social activity involved. |
✓ Offenses disclose cognizable criminal offenses. ✓ Appellants used violence, threat, and coercion. |
| Property Dispute |
✓ CC No. 58/2023: Dispute over property transaction; ready to return advance payment. ✓ CC No. 60/2023: Exchange Deed fully implemented; Agreement to Sell cancelled. ✓ CC No. 119/2022: Lodged by R5’s henchman; charge under Section 395 IPC dropped. |
✓ Appellants involved in fraudulent property dealings. ✓ Intimidated innocent persons. |
| Legality of FIR | ✓ Misuse of the Act by the State. |
✓ Commissioner of Police granted approval. ✓ Gang Chart prepared and approved. |
| Impact of Civil Suits | (Implicit) Civil suits highlight the civil nature of disputes. | ✓ Civil suits do not exonerate from criminal liability (citing Iqbal Singh Marwah and Prem Raj). |
| Applicability of the Act | ✓ Predicate offenses do not warrant the stringent Gangster Act. | ✓ Even a single case can make a person liable under the Act (citing Shraddha Gupta). |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the allegations in the predicate cases, primarily civil in nature, warrant the application of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the allegations in the predicate cases, primarily civil in nature, warrant the application of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986? | The Supreme Court quashed the FIR. | The allegations, primarily civil in nature, did not meet the threshold requirement to enable recourse to the Act. The Court emphasized the need to protect the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Mohammad Wajid v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the duty of the court to carefully examine FIRs and related circumstances when allegations of frivolous or vexatious proceedings are made.
- Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695: The Court cited this case to reiterate that penal statutes must be construed strictly, especially when special provisions are made in derogation of the general rights of a citizen.
- Iqbal Singh Marwah v Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370: Cited by Respondent No. 5 to argue that civil suits do not exonerate the appellants from criminal liability.
- Prem Raj v Poonamma Menon, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 483: Cited by Respondent No. 5 to argue that civil suits do not exonerate the appellants from criminal liability.
- Shraddha Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514: Cited by Respondent No. 5 to argue that even a single case against a person can make him liable to be charged under the Act.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Mohammad Wajid v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 | The Court relied on this case to justify “lifting the veil” and examining the underlying circumstances of the FIR. |
| Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695 | The Court used this case to reinforce the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed. |
| Iqbal Singh Marwah v Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 | Cited by Respondent No. 5 to argue that civil suits do not exonerate the appellants from criminal liability. |
| Prem Raj v Poonamma Menon, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 483 | Cited by Respondent No. 5 to argue that civil suits do not exonerate the appellants from criminal liability. |
| Shraddha Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514 | Cited by Respondent No. 5 to argue that even a single case against a person can make him liable to be charged under the Act. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | The allegations in the predicate cases were civil in nature and did not constitute any anti-social activity. | The Court agreed with the appellants, stating that the allegations primarily related to property and monetary transactions and were substantially civil in nature. |
| Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) | The appellants were hardened criminals involved in extortion, fraudulent property dealings, and goondaism. | The Court found the allegations vague and insufficient to meet the threshold requirement for invoking the Act. |
| Respondent No. 5 | Even a single case against a person can make him liable to be charged under the Act, as held in Shraddha Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514. | The Court distinguished the present case from Shraddha Gupta, noting that the predicate cases against the appellants were not serious enough to warrant the application of the Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Mohammad Wajid v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951: The Court relied on this case to justify “lifting the veil” and examining the underlying circumstances of the FIR.
✓ Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695: The Court used this case to reinforce the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIR was primarily influenced by the following factors:
✓ The allegations in the predicate cases were substantially civil in nature, relating to property and monetary transactions.
✓ The FIR lacked specific details and appeared vague, failing to meet the threshold requirement for invoking the Gangster Act.
✓ The Court emphasized the need to protect the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, cautioning against the unfettered discretion of authorities in invoking stringent laws.
✓ The complainant(s)/informant(s) in the predicate cases had already resorted to remedies under criminal law and civil proceedings, making the resort to the Gangster Act premature and uncalled for.
Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Civil Nature of Allegations | 40% |
| Vagueness of FIR | 25% |
| Protection of Life and Liberty | 20% |
| Availability of Other Legal Remedies | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of Factual Aspects) | 60% |
| Law (Legal Considerations) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether the allegations in the predicate cases, primarily civil in nature, warrant the application of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986?
| Allegations in Predicate Cases |
| ↓ |
| Are the Allegations Primarily Civil in Nature? |
| ↓ |
| Do the Allegations Meet the Threshold for Invoking the Gangster Act? (Violence, Threat, Disturbance of Public Order) |
| ↓ |
| Protection of Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21) |
| ↓ |
| Other Legal Remedies Available? |
| ↓ |
| Conclusion: FIR Quashed |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Stringent laws like the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, should be invoked with caution and only when there is sufficient material to justify their application.
- ✓ Allegations that are primarily civil in nature, such as property disputes, may not warrant the application of such stringent laws.
- ✓ Courts have a duty to protect the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and should be vigilant against the misuse of stringent laws.
- ✓ Authorities should consider the availability of other legal remedies before resorting to invoking the Gangster Act.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State machinery to adhere to the guidelines formulated for invoking the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, subject to orders as may be passed by the Coordinate Bench in seisin.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, should not be invoked in cases where the allegations are primarily civil in nature and do not meet the threshold requirement of violence, threat, or disturbance of public order. This judgment reinforces the need for a cautious and judicious application of stringent laws, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.
Conclusion
In Jay Kishan and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., the Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the appellants, holding that the allegations, primarily civil in nature, did not warrant the application of the stringent Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court emphasized the need to protect the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and directed the State machinery to adhere to the guidelines formulated for invoking the Act.