Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act Cannot Be Misused to Convert Civil Disputes into Criminal Cases: Supreme Court Quashes FIR

Stringent Penal Laws Must Be Strictly Construed, Unfettered Discretion Cannot Stand -Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against Jay Kishan and others, holding that the case stemmed from civil property disputes rather than organized criminal activity. The Court emphasized that stringent penal laws cannot be invoked arbitrarily and that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 must be protected against misuse of such statutes.

A Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered the verdict in Jay Kishan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., allowing the appeal and setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which had dismissed the petitioners’ challenge to the FIR. "A mere multiplicity of cases does not justify invoking the Gangsters Act unless there is a clear demonstration of organized crime, intimidation, or threat to public order. In this case, the disputes were civil in nature, and the allegations fail to meet the statutory threshold under the Act," the Court observed.

"Read Between the Lines": Supreme Court Warns Against Misuse of Criminal Law for Harassment

The Court applied the principles laid down in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, emphasizing that courts must scrutinize FIRs beyond their surface allegations to determine whether they are being used as tools of harassment. "Courts must read between the lines to ascertain whether criminal law is being weaponized for personal vendetta. The right to liberty cannot be curtailed merely because an FIR is well-drafted. The underlying material must substantiate the charges beyond mere allegations," the judgment stated.

The Court found that the predicate offences cited in the FIR—three separate cases under the Indian Penal Code—were essentially property and monetary disputes between private parties. "The so-called 'gang' cases were nothing more than civil disputes between two families. The FIR under the Gangsters Act is, therefore, nothing more than an attempt to criminalize civil litigation," the Bench remarked.

Strict Interpretation of Penal Laws: Gangsters Act Cannot Be Invoked Lightly

The Supreme Court reiterated the long-established principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed. Citing Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695, the Court stated: "If a law imposes severe penal consequences, it must be applied with extreme caution and strict adherence to statutory requirements. The Gangsters Act is not a tool to settle private disputes or exert pressure in property conflicts."

The Court examined Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines a "gang" as a group engaging in violence, intimidation, or anti-social activities with the intent of disturbing public order or gaining undue advantage. The Court found that the cases against the appellants did not meet these criteria. "The FIR reads more like a civil complaint disguised as a criminal conspiracy. It lacks the essential elements of organized crime," the judgment held.

State Cannot Invoke Gangsters Act Without Genuine Public Threat

The Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for failing to demonstrate any real public threat posed by the appellants. "Mere mention of the words ‘fear’ and ‘terror’ in an FIR does not transform a civil dispute into organized crime. The burden is on the State to prove that public order is at risk, which is entirely absent in this case," the Bench noted.

The judgment also referenced Shraddha Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514, to clarify that the presence of multiple FIRs does not automatically justify invoking the Gangsters Act. "The Act is meant to combat organized crime, not to serve as a litigation strategy for private parties," the Court emphasized.

FIR Quashed, Proceedings Set Aside

The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 0092/2023 under the U.P. Gangsters Act and set aside all consequential proceedings. "The invocation of the Gangsters Act in this case is premature and unwarranted. The appellants cannot be treated as criminals merely because of ongoing civil disputes," the Court held.

The Bench also took note of an ongoing case (SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 2673/2023), in which a Coordinate Bench is considering the formulation of guidelines for invoking the Gangsters Act. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to adhere to those guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of the law.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that criminal law cannot be used as a means of harassment and that the Gangsters Act must be applied with caution and strict adherence to legal standards. The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications in preventing the misuse of stringent penal statutes for private disputes.

Date of Decision: February 11, 2025