Quashingof First Information Report (FIR) filed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The appellants, including Jay Kishan, argued that the underlying criminal cases were primarily civil property disputes being wrongly criminalized for ulterior motives. However, the respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh, contended that the appellants were hardened criminals involved in various anti-social activities. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, finding that the allegations were vague and that the invocation of the stringent Act seemed premature and uncalled for as the underlying cases were not yet adjudicated.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Sections 2(b), 2(c) and 3 – Quashing of FIR – Lifting the veil, to understand what actually lies beneath the material – Appellants assailed the FIR by way of the 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 – Scrutiny of the cases cited in the FIR to invoke the Act against the appellants prima facie reveal that the same substantially relate to and/or emanate from certain property and monetary transactions. The said transactions are primarily civil in nature – No doubt, addition of various Sections of the IPC in the three CCs may come under the ambit of the offences specified in Section 2(b) of the Act – However, undoubtedly, mere invocation of certain Sections of the IPC could not and would not preclude the Court from, in a manner of speaking, lifting the veil, to understand what actually lies beneath the material, which is sought to be made the basis for invoking the Act.
(Para 23)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Sections 2(b), 2(c) and 3 – Quashing of FIR – Premature and uncalled for – Held that three CCs find reference in the FIR would exhibit a certain vagueness – The same would not meet the threshold requirement to enable recourse to the Act – Obviously, the allegations in the CCs are yet to be adjudicated finally by a competent court – Though the Act can be invoked basis pending case, yet the case(s) against the person(s) qua whom the Act is to be invoked cannot be run-of-the-mill–it must be serious – For the three CCs, as trial has yet to commence/is continuing/has not been concluded, for the present, there remain only indications and open-endedness to the allegations – In other words, in praesenti, the underlying CCs do not appear to fall within the net of ‘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’, as mandated under Section 2(b) of the Act – The situation, thus, would clearly operate to the benefit of the appellants – Complainant(s)/informant(s) in the three CCs have resorted to their remedies under criminal law – Assuming that all the allegations in the three CCs are correct, there is no mention of any instance, post-registration of the said CCs, of the appellants implementing/acting on the said alleged threats – The complainant(s)/informant(s) have also resorted, where required, to civil proceedings – In the overall picture that emerges from the above, resort to the Act by the State seems premature and uncalled for – FIR stands quashed – Impugned Judgment shall stand set aside – Proceedings consequential to CC No.0092/2023 stand effaced.
(Para 26 to 28)
Jay Kishan & Ors. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 198: (DoJ 12-02-2025)
