2025 INSC 811 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023)

LAL MOHD. & ANR. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal by special leave, arises out

of the final judgment and order dated 3

rd May, 2023

1,

passed by the learned Division Bench of the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2, in Criminal

1

Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”.

2

Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.

2

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023,

whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition

filed by the appellants seeking quashing of First

Information Report

3, in CC No. 132 of 2023

4 dated

30

th April, 2023, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar

Pradesh Gangsters & Anti -Social Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1986

5, lodged at Police Station

Khargupur, District-Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

4. The factual background, essential for the

disposal of the instant appeal, is as follows:

4.1 The appellants herein claim to be members of a

political party in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Appellant No. 1 is a former two -time elected

Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, and appellant No.

2 is the son of appellant No. 1.

4.2 On 10

th 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

3

For short ‘FIR’.

4

Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned FIR’

5

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘UP Gangsters Act’.

3

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

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

11

th October 2022, against the people involved in the

aforesaid incidents. An FIR, bearing CC No. 294 of

2022

6, 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, 1860

7 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law

Amendment Act, 2013

8, at Police Station Khargupur,

District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, a

second FIR, bearing CC No. 296 of 2022

9, 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

6

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘First FIR.’

7

Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’.

8

Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2013’.

9

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second FIR.’

4

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

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 30

th 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 10

th 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 29

th April, 2023.

5

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 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 the gang chart,

if any, prepared by them, on the basis of which Arun

Kumar Dwivedi, Inspector-in-Charge, had lodged the

impugned FIR. The High Court, vide judgment dated

3

rd May, 2023, dismissed the said writ petition, which

is assailed by the appellants herein in this appeal by

special leave.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently

and fervently contended that the High Court

seriously erred in rejecting the prayer seeking

quashing of the impugned FIR. In this regard, he

advanced the following submissions:

5.1 That, in the present case, the two earlier FIRs,

bearing CC No. 294 and CC No. 296 of 2022, were

registered on 11

th October, 2022, for the same

incident, involving identical allegations and the same

set of accused persons. The contents of both FIRs

6

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

relate to the events that unfolded on 10

th October,

2022 in Khargupur, Uttar Pradesh, leading to the

arrest of the appellants and their subsequent release

on bail upon the order of the competent court.

However, nearly six months subsequent to the two

earlier FIRs being registered, the impugned FIR came

to be registered on 30

th April, 2023, under the UP

Gangsters Act, which is based entirely on the same

allegations set out in the above two FIRs. This highly

belated invocation of stringent law, in the absence of

any intervening act or omission, gives rise to a strong

inference of severe bias and a persecutory approach

on the part of the prosecuting agency.

5.2 That the allegations as set out against the

appellants in the impugned FIR do not meet the

threshold justifying invocation of the UP Gangsters

Act, as there is no material indicating that they form

part of a “gang” as defined under the UP Gangsters

Act. There is no evidence/allegation against the

appellants of repeated criminal activity, habitual

behaviour, or any intent to gain undue pecuniary

advantage. The appellants are not involved in any

organised crime. They were simply a part of the

spontaneous protest against the incendiary social

7

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

media post made by Rikki Modanwal intended to hurt

religious sentiments. They have not formed any

unlawful syndicate. Their alleged involvement in the

protest being a singular act is already being dealt

with under regular criminal law and for which bail

has already been granted to the appellants.

5.3 That following their release on bail, no fresh

material was available to the prosecuting agency

indicating continuing criminal activity, breach of

public order, or prejudicial conduct on the part of the

appellants. The authorities are not seized of any fresh

material or credible evidence to indicate that the

appellants have subsequently committed any offence

or participated in any gangster-like activity. The

impugned FIR does not attribute any specific role or

leadership to the appellants, nor does it mention any

act that disturbed the peace after their arrest and

release on bail in the previous FIRs. For invoking the

UP Gangsters Act, there must be a demonstrable link

that connects the accused's actions with the

disruption of public order through anti -social

conduct, yet there is neither a clear nexus between

the appellants and the alleged unlawful assembly

that turned violent, nor any sustained course of

8

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

conduct that can be concluded as intimidating or

coercive to the general public. The UP Gangsters Act

was introduced to target habitual offenders and

organised crime syndicates, and not to penalise

isolated acts of protest-related transgressions.

Furthermore, the impugned FIR and gang chart only

refer to one of the FIRs, i.e., CC No. 294 of 2022, thus

demonstrating the lack of credible material to show

any persistent or systemic activity that could justify

the invocation of the UP Gangsters Act under these

facts.

5.4 That the impugned FIR under the Gangsters Act

was registered on 30

th April, 2023, with mala fide

intention. The timing of the FIR creates a grave doubt

on its bona fides as it came to be registered only 13

days after appellant No. 1's daughter-in-law filed her

nomination for Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat

Khargupur on 17

th April, 2023. The appellants had

already anticipated this false case and filed a

representation on 25

th April, 2023, to the UP State

Election Commission and Party President raising a

concern about misuse of the UP Gangsters Act. This

representation was filed 5 days before the FIR was

actually registered. The proximity between the

9

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

political nomination and the criminal case, along

with the appellants' anticipated expression of

concern to authorities, clearly shows that the UP

Gangsters Act is being used as a political vendetta

rather than a genuine bona fide criminal prosecution.

Therefore, the FIR should be quashed as it

tantamounts to gross abuse of the process of law.

On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants

implored this Court to allow the present appeal, set

aside the judgment passed by the High Court, and

quash the impugned FIR.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:

6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the

State, vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants,

and urged that the High Court has rightly rejected

the writ petition seeking the quashing of the

impugned FIR. In this regard, he has advanced the

following submissions:

6.1 The facts disclosed in the first and second FIRs

clearly show that the appellants led a large unlawful

assembly equipped with weapons like lathis and glass

10

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

bottles and actively participated in violent acts

targeting civilians and police personnel alike. The

group, acting violently, vandalised the property of

Sonu Modanwal , created panic among local

shopkeepers, and over and above that, caused severe

disruption to public peace, law & order. Such

coordinated violence, especially in a communally

sensitive context, squarely falls within the ambit of

‘anti-social activity’ and ‘disturbance of public order’

as defined under the UP Gangsters Act, which is

specifically designed to address situations where

individual offences under the IPC prove inadequate to

prevent the operation of criminal gangs that seek to

intimidate, threaten, or gain undue advantage

through violence.

6.2 That the two earlier FIRs, namely, CC No. 294

of 2022 and CC No. 296 of 2022 addressed specific

incidents of violence, while the impugned FIR relates

to the appellants’ continued involvement in organised

crime and their status as habitual offenders

threatening public order. The UP Gangsters Act

permits prosecution based on a pattern of conduct

that demonstrates the existence of a gang involved in

11

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

criminal activities and its operation over a period of

time. The appellant’s conduct before and after bail,

coupled with witness accounts and local reports,

justifies their classification as gang members. The

law does not require a fresh incident for invoking the

UP Gangsters Act if existing material establishes

continued unlawful activity intending to create fear

or extract undue benefit.

6.3 The contention raised by the appellants, that

the UP Gangsters Act cannot be invoked merely

because it refers to only one FIR, is misplaced and

legally unsustainable. The UP Gangsters Act does not

prescribe a numerical threshold of offences/FIRs for

its applicability. Rather, it focuses on the nature and

intent of the act, whether it amounts to an anti-social

activity intended to disturb public order or to gain

undue advantage. Learned counsel placed reliance

on the judgment of this Court in Shraddha Gupta

v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

10

, wherein it

was held that even a single offence or charge sheet

can form the basis for prosecution under the UP

Gangsters Act, provided it falls within the scope of

10

2022 SCC OnLine SC 514.

12

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

anti-social activities enumerated under Section 2(b)

of the Act. Thus, even if the prosecution is based on

one or two offences, if the prejudicial acts involve

organised crime, intimidation, or threat to public

order, the invocation of Sections 2 and 3 of the UP

Gangsters Act remains entirely valid and enforceable.

6.4 The appellant’s conduct in orchestrating a

violent riot on 11

th October, 2022, which disrupted

communal harmony and public peace, satisfies the

essential requirements of the statutory provisions

making the prosecution legally tenable.

On these grounds, learned counsel for the

respondents implored this Court to reject the present

appeal and uphold the judgment of the High Court.

Analysis & Discussion

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to

the submissions advanced at the bar and perused the

material available on record.

8. Before delving into the submissions advanced

by both the parties, it is essential to first examine the

foundational principles that govern the quashing of

13

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

complaints and criminal proceedings at the

threshold. This Court in State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal

11, has laid down parameters for the

quashing of an FIR and the proceedings subsequent

thereto. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced

herein below:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter

XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this

Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise

of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which

we have extracted and reproduced above, we have

given the following categories of cases by way of

illustration wherein such power could be exercised

either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may

not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly

defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive

list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power

should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any, accompanying the

FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an

investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of

11

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

14

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within

the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected

in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute

a cognizable offence but constitute only a non -

cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a

police officer without an order of a Magistrate as

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable

on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground

for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in

any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act

(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to

the institution and continuance of the proceedings

and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code

or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for

the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.”

(emphasis supplied)

15

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

9. The core issue, which is posed for the

consideration of this Court in the present appeal is,

whether the prosecution of the appellants under the

UP Gangsters Act satisfies the statutory thresholds

prescribed under the Act, when it is based entirely on

a single FIR (Case Crime No. 294 of 2022), in which

the appellants were already arrested and released on

bail, and where no new act or omission has occurred

between the date of registration of the First FIR i.e.,

11

th October, 2022, and the preparation of the gang

chart on 29

th April, 2023.

10. The statutory definitions provided in Sections

2(b) and 2(c) of the UP Gangsters Act establish the

framework for determining who qualifies as “gang” or

“gangster” under the law.

11. Gainful reference in this regard may be made to

Sections 2(b) and (c) of the UP Gangsters Act, which

are being reproduced hereinbelow :

“2. (b) “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

16

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

or any other person, indulge in anti -social

activities (Act No. 2 of 1974), namely—

(i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or

Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian

Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or

(ii) distilling or manufacturing or storing or

transporting or importing or exporting or selling

or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or

dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or

narcotics or cultivating any plant, in

contravention of any of the provisions of the U.P.

Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910) or the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 or any other law for the time being in

force, or

(iii) occupying or talking possession of

immovable property otherwise than in

accordance with law, or setting up false claims

for title or possession of immovable property

whether in himself or any other person, or (Act

No. 61 of 1985)

(iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any

public servant or any witness from discharging

his lawful duties, or

(v) offences punishable under the Suppression

of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,

1956, or

(vi) offences punishable under Section 3 of the

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act No. 104 of

1956), or

17

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

(vii) preventing any person from offering bids in

auction lawfully conducted, or tender, lawfully

invited, by or on behalf of any government

department, local body or public or private

undertaking for any lease or right or supply of

goods or work to be done, or

(viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth

running by any person of his lawful business

profession, trade or employment or any other

lawful activity connected therewith, or

(ix) offences punishable under Section 171-E of

the Indian Penal Code, or in preventing or

obstructing any public election being lawfully

held, by physically preventing the voter from

exercising his electoral rights, or

(x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb

communal harmony, or

(xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or

(xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or

owners or occupiers of public or private

undertakings or factories and causing mischief

in respect of their properties, or

(xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any

person to go to foreign countries on false

representation that any employment, trade or

profession shall be provided to him in such

foreign country, or

(xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with

intent to extort ransom, or

18

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

(xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any

aircraft or public transport vehicle from

following its scheduled course;

(c) “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.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. This Court in Shraddha Gupta (supra), held

that an accused can be termed as ‘gangster’ when he

as a member of a ‘gang’, has indulged in any of the

enumerated anti-social activities, whether by means

expressly stated 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. The relevant paragraph

from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced

hereinbelow:

“25. A group of persons may act collectively or any

one of the members of the group may also act singly,

with the object of disturbing public order indulging in

anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the

Gangsters Act, who can be termed as “gangster”. A

member of a “gang” acting either singly or collectively

may be termed as a member of the “gang” and comes

within the definition of “gang”, provided he/she is

found to have indulged in any of the anti -social

19

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters

Act.

xx

27. As per the settled position of law, the provisions

of the statute are to be read and considered as it is.

Therefore, considering the provisions under the

Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a

single offence/FIR/chargesheet, if it is found that the

accused is a member of a “gang” and has indulged in

any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section

2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, 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

and he/she can be termed as “gangster” within the

definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be

prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act.”

13. While adjudicating upon the constitutionality of

the UP Gangsters Act, a Division Bench of High Court

of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of

U.P.

12, held that the term ‘gang’ means a group of

persons who by violence, or threat, or show of

violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise

indulge in anti-social activities with the object of

disturbing public order or gaining any undue or

pecuniary material or other advantage for himself.

The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:

12

1987 SCC OnLine All 203.

20

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

“12. Section 2(b) defines the term “Gang” to mean a

group of persons who by violence, or threat, or show

of violence or intimidation or coercion etc. indulge in

anti-social activities with the object of disturbing

public order of gaining any undue temporal or

pecuniary material or other advantage for himself. S.

2(b) read as a whole necessarily brings in the concept

of violence or intimidation or coercion etc. which is

resorted to for gaining material advantage. Then we

have cl. (c) of S. 2 which defines the word “Gangster”.

It means a member or leader or organiser of a group

which indulges in the kind of activities set out under

the various sub-clauses of cl. (b) of S. 2, by use of

violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation

etc. S. 3(i) lays down the penalty for being the member

or leader or organiser of a group which engages or

indulges in the kind of unsocial activities enumerated

under S. 2(b) by use of violence etc.”

14. From the above statutory provisions and

judicial precedents, the legal position concerning the

determination of "gang" and "gangster" under the UP

Gangsters Act, has been well-defined. The statutory

scheme delineates that a "gang" constitutes a group

of persons who, whether acting singularly or in

concert, perpetrate the enumerated anti -social

activities through the instrumentality of violence,

threat, intimidation, or coercion with the manifest

object of either disturbing public order or procuring

undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other

advantages. From the above exposition of law, a

group of persons may be said to constitute a gang

21

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

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, or otherwise, and most importantly, with the

object of disturbing public order, or securing any

undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other

advantage for himself or any other person.

15. The impugned FIR dated 30

th April, 2023,

lodged by Inspector Arun Kumar Dwivedi, narrates

that the appellants led an organised gang whose

members, armed with lathis and glass bottles,

attacked the shop owned by Vipin Modanwal and

others over a social media post disparaging a specific

religion, which created chaos, terror and disrupted

public order. The impugned FIR reads thus:

“Copy of application/complaint in Hindi written by

Head Constable (HM), Police station Kharagpur,

District Gonda…….

I, Inspector, Incharge, Arun Kumar Dwivedi alongwith

S.I. Akhilesh Yadav, S.I. Diwakar Mishra, Head

Constable Munawar Ali, Head Constable Raj Kishore,

Constable Satyajit Morya, constable Ritesh Gupta,

W/Ct. Shilpa Yadav, W/Ct. Satakshi Shukla in

government vehicle UP 43 G 0352 with its driver

Constable Umender Yadav was on the patrolling of

the area for controlling the crimes. Meanwhile I came

to know that accused persons Lal Mohd. son of Munir

Ahmed resident of Pure Harwahanpurwa, Kharagpur

22

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

town District Gonda has an organized gang. He

alongwith his accomplices Ramzan son of Usman

Gani resident of Pure Harwahanpurwa, Kharagpur

town, police station Kharagpur District Gonda,

Rehman son of Usman Gani resident of Rastogi

Mohalla, Kharagpur town, police station Kharagpur

District Gonda, Lukman son of Usman Gani resident

of Mohalla Rastogi, Kharagpur town, police station

Kharagpur District Gonda, Shamsher Ali son of

Mohd. Vaki resident of Thakurganj, Kharagpur town,

police station Kharagpur District Gonda, Mohd.

Yusuf son of Ali Raza resident of Old Bazar,

Kharagpur town, police station Kharagpur District

Gonda, Tanvir Ali son of Shamsher Ali resident of

Thakurganj, Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Taukir

Ali son of Shamsher Ali resident of Thakurganj ,

Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Mohd. Waris son of

Wali Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa,

Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Yasin son of Sabir

resident of Chikwa Badhiya, Kharagpur town,

District, Gonda, Sakir son of Idu resident Kharagpur

town, District Gonda, Nakane son of Usman Ali

resident of Rastogi Mohalla, Kharagpur town, District

Gonda, Mohd. Akram son of Wali Mohd. resident of

Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District

Gonda, Aslam son of Wali Mohd. resident of Pure

Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpu r town, District Gonda,

Liyakat son of Aliraza resident of Old Bazar,

Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Siraz Ali son of

Hamid Ali resident of Darzi, Kharagpur town West,

District Gonda, Meraz son of Salim resident of

Kharagpur town West, District Gonda, Reh mat Ali

son of Hamid Ali resident of Kathariya Mohalla,

Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Noor Alam son of

Nazir resident of Darzi, Kharagpur town East, District

Gonda, Nazir son of Badal resident of Kharagpur town

East, District Gonda, Rizwan son of Ramzan Ali

resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town,

District Gonda, Ramzan Ali son of Munir Ahmed

resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town,

District Gonda, Jahir alias Jahiruddin son of Lal

23

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur

town, District Gonda, Asif son of Shabir resident of

Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Arif son of Shabir

resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Mohd.

Shamim alias Nibaru son of Shafi resident of

Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Danish son of Ali

Mohd, resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda,

Sonu son of Lallu resident of Kharagpur town,

District Gonda, Banthe son of Shyam Mohd. resident

of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Zuber son of Teni

resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Sakil son

of Sabbir resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda,

Sameer son of Sabbir resident of Kharagpur town,

District Gonda, Arbaz son of Mobin resident of

Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Imran son of

Chhotu alias Shafikurrehman resident of Kharagpur

town, District Gonda, Azad alias Aizaz son of Irfan

resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Saif son

of Manuddin resident of Kathariya town, Kharagpur,

District Gonda, Azmat Ali son of Tinai resident of Old

Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Rizwan son of

Abdul Hamid resident of Darzi East, Kharagpur town,

District Gonda, Jokhu son of Tinai resident of Old

Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Asif alias Raj

son of Raju resident of Old Bazar Kharagpur town,

District Gonda, Mohd. Imran son of Rafique resident

of Pure Harwahan Purwa Kharagpur town, District

Gonda, Gulam Haider son of Bakridi resident of Old

Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda organized

with their common intention, on the comments

made on Mohd. Prophet on 10 .10.2022 at 8.00 PM

at the shop of Vipin Modanwal situated at Subji

Mandi, Kharagpur town having lathis and glass

bottles in their hands, hurled abuses and by

extending threat to kill, they started vandalizing the

shop. When they were forbade to do so, then they

started attacking at Vipin, Sonu, Durgesh, Sarvesh at

their heads with lathis, wooden sticks and glass

bottles with intention to kill them. Due to this there

was a chaotic situation in the market and

shopkeepers started running away by closing their

24

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

shops. Consequently it created an atmosphere of

fear and terror in entire area and disturbed the law

and order. This organized gang/group was being

led by Lal Mohd. son of Munir Ahmed. Due to

criminal acts committed by aforementioned gang

and its members, general public has suffered with

heavy financial loss and law and order remained

disturbed for many days in the area due to

disturbance of social and religious harmony. Crime

case under sections

147/148/149/427/307/323/504/506 of Indian

Penal Code and section 7 of C.L.A. Act was registered

against accused persons and after completion of

investigation, charge sheet has been forwarded to the

Hon'ble Court, which is under consideration of

Hon'ble Court. Act committed by accused persons

falls under the category of offence mentioned in

Chapters 16 and 22 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not

interest in the general public that they set scot free in

the society. Offence committed by the accused

persons falls under the purview of section 2(Kha) of

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1986. In order to curb these criminal

acts of these accused persons and in order to control

the crime, a Gang Chart has got prepared under

section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-

Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and in

reference to approval accorded by the District

Magistrate, Gonda on 29.04.2023, gangster case be

registered against Gang Leader Lal Mohd. above

named and his above named members. Note - I,

Inspector Incharge has got written this complaint

through S.I. Diwakar on my dictation on the spot.

Sd/- in English Illegible (Arun Kumar Dwivedi),

Inspector Incharge, police station Kharagpur District

Gonda. Dated: 30.04.2023. Note - I, Nitish Mani

Tripathi do certify that contents of written complaint

have been mentioned by me in verbatim in CCTNS

except typographical errors.”

(emphasis supplied)

25

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

16. A careful scrutiny of the impugned FIR reveals

crucial deficiencies and fundamental flaws. The

impugned FIR merely refers to an isolated incident

that occurred on 10

th October 2022, involving

allegations of vandalism at Vipin Modanwal's shop

following disparaging comments made about a

particular religious belief by Rikki Modanwal which

the appellants follow. The absence of any subsequent

criminal acts or pattern of organized criminal

behavior between the foundational FIR (Case Crime

No. 294 of 2022) registered on 11

th October, 2022 and

the preparation of the gang chart on 29

th April, 2023

demonstrates that this single criminal incident dated

10

th October, 2022, regardless of its severity, does not

constitute a sustained pattern of activities.

17. While the FIR alleges that, appellant No. 1, lead

an ‘organized gang’ with numerous co-accused, it

provides no substantive evidence of hierarchical

structure, systematic planning, or coordinated

criminal activities that would distinguish this group

from a group of individuals involved in a spontaneous

communal protest. The impugned FIR contains a

mere conjectural statement, neither corroborated nor

26

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

substantiated by the facts available on record. The

impugned FIR's narrative suggests a reactive

response to instigation caused by an inflammatory

religious post rather than premeditated gang activity.

The 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 the

stringent requirements for establishing gang

membership.

18. The whole incident appears to have been

triggered by the incendiary social media post made

by Rikki Mondalwal tending to defile the religious

sentiments of the appellants and other co-accused

rather than by calculated gang objectives of securing

material advantages or establishing territorial

control. Furthermore, the FIR does not demonstrate

any pattern of the offending group engaging in the

enumerated anti-social activities beyond this single

incident, thereby failing to establish the sustained

criminal enterprise that the UP Gangsters Act is

designed to address.

27

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

19. It is an undisputed fact that no new act or

omission occurred between the registration of the

first FIR on 11

th October, 2022 and the preparation

of the gang chart on 29

th April, 2023. This temporal

gap, devoid of any additional criminal activity,

undermines the prosecution's endeavour to

demonstrate ongoing gang operations or escalating

criminal behaviour that would justify the invocation

of the UP Gangsters Act. Mere involvement of the

accused appellants in a demonstration pursuant to a

communal flare-up, however serious, does not ipso

facto transform the participants into a ‘gang’ without

evidence of organised and continuous criminal

activity. Moreover, the impugned FIR fails to

distinguish adequately between the roles of the

nominated accused persons.

20. In the present case, the incident occurred on

10

th October, 2022, and the appellants were granted

bail in January, 2023, after the competent courts

found no criminal history and only simple injuries

resulting from the altercation. The gang chart was

prepared and approved on 29

th April, 2023, and the

impugned FIR was registered on 30

th April, 2023,

28

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

sans any fresh or intervening conduct. This sequence

indicates that the gang chart was manifestly a post-

facto construction aimed at recharacterizing an

already investigated and prosecuted communal

altercation as an act of organised crime, without any

new evidence to warrant such a serious escalation.

21. Furthermore, the impugned FIR was registered

coincidentally just 13 days after appellant No. 1's

daughter-in-law filed her nomination for the

Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur on

17

th April, 2023. The appellants' representation dated

25

th April, 2023 addressed to the UP-State Election

Commission and the Party President, regarding the

possibility of false implication under the UP

Gangsters Act, preceded the actual registration of the

FIR. This timing lends credence to their contention

that the Act may have been weaponised for

extraneous considerations.

22. When juxtaposed with the object and intent of

the UP Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat

organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal

syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public

order, the application of the Act to the appellants

29

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

based on a single incident of communal violence

flaring up from an incendiary post made by one

against a particular religion represents a significant

departure from its legislative purpose. The

afterthought application of the UP Gangsters Act in

the present case, in absence of any subsequent

criminal conduct of the appellant, bears the hallmark

of colourable exercise of power for purposes

extraneous to the Act’s legitimate objectives.

23. It is trite law that any procedure prescribed by

law must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary,

presumption, or oppressive. This principle, firmly

embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence, forms

the cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of

India, which guarantees that no person shall be

deprived of life or personal liberty except according to

procedure established by law.

24. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty

acquires even greater significance when

extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions,

such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the

State has broad discretion in criminal prosecution,

this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based

30

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

on relevant considerations, and in conformity with

the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the

State cannot be wielded as an instrument of

harassment or intimidation, particularly where

political motivations may be at play.

25. It is a cardinal principle of criminal

jurisprudence that 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. The materials relied upon must

establish a reasonable nexus between the accused

and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating

actual probability of involvement rather than mere

theoretical possibility. When a statute creates serious

fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation

for its invocation must be commensurately strong,

supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than

vague assertions.

26. In the present case, the impugned FIR and the

gang chart fail to meet this essential threshold, as

they rest largely on presumptive theories rather than

presenting tangible material to establish the

31

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

probability that the appellants were engaged in

organised criminal activity as contemplated by the

Act. With the trial in the previous FIR remaining

inconclusive, compelling the appellants to undergo

another prosecution under the UP Gangsters Act for

the same set of allegations, would constitute a

manifest abuse of the legal process and result in a

gross miscarriage of justice.

27. Before concluding, we would like to make a

reference to a recent Order passed by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath Mishra v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh

13

, whereby the State of Uttar

Pradesh was directed to consider framing guidelines-

cum-parameters which are to be followed before

invoking provisions of the UP Gangsters Act. In

compliance with that directive, the Uttar Pradesh

State Government vide Office Memorandum Office

Memorandum-Circular No. 4619, framed guidelines

for invoking the provisions of the UP Gangsters Act,

directing strict compliance with those guidelines,

read with the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities

(Prevention) Rules, 2021 framed under the UP

13

Criminal Appeal No. 2589 of 2025.

32

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

Gangsters Act, regarding the preparation of the gang

chart. The said guidelines have also been made part

of a judgment in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal v.

State of Uttar Pradesh.

14

28. These guidelines were not placed on record by

the appellants in the present case (as they were

issued subsequent to the filing of this petition),

however, upon a prima facie examination, it appears

to us that the invocation of the UP Gangsters Act in

the present matter would not withstand scrutiny

even under these guidelines which emphasise the

need for rigorous assessment of the gravity of

underlying offences, established patterns of criminal

activity, and proper verification of criminal

antecedents before invoking the Act. The allegations

in the present case fail to meet this rigour. However,

we clarify that this observation is based purely on the

facts of this case and not a definitive finding on the

application of the guidelines, which were not subject

to adversarial scrutiny in the present appeal.

14

2025 INSC 267.

33

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

29. Considering the foregoing facts and

circumstances, we are of the view that the procedural

and substantive thresholds prescribed under

Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the UP Gangsters Act have

not been adequately met in the present case. Hence,

the impugned FIR dated 30

th April, 2023, namely CC

No. 132 of 2023, does not stand to scrutiny. The

impugned judgment dated 3

rd May, 2023, rendered

by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous

Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023, stands set aside.

30. The impugned FIR CC No. 132 of 2023 and all

proceedings consequential thereto stand quashed.

However, we deem it proper to clarify that our

observations and analysis on the foundational FIRs

are strictly circumscribed to the limited purpose of

evaluating the impugned FIR under the UP Gangsters

Act and will not have any bearing on the 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 the Courts concerned.

31. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid

terms.

34

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023

32. Pending applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

May 14, 2025.

35

Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 6607 of 2023