Supreme Court Quashed The FIR On The Ground Of Premature Invocation Of Gangster Act.

The Supreme Court of India addressed an appeal against the High Court's order dismissing a writ petition to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (the “Act”) in JAY KISHAN AND ORS VS State of Uttar Pradesh. The case concerns allegations against the appellants, who are accused of being members of a gang involved in property disputes and other criminal activities.

Background FIRs was registered against the appellants/accused on the basis of three criminal cases (CC Nos. 119/2022, 58/2023, and 60/2023). The FIR was registered by the Station House Officer of Police Station - Bamrauli Katara on the basis of a complaint that the appellants were members of one of the appellants' gang and were engaged in criminal offenses. The appellants questioned the FIR on the ground and argued that the predicate offenses pertains to property disputes., however, the High Court rejected the writ petition, and the appeal before the Supreme Court ensued.

Nature of Allegations: The Court noted that the cited cases in the FIR are mainly of a property and monetary nature, which are largely civil in character.

Lifting the Veil: The Apex Court indicated that invoking specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not stop the court from looking into the material on which the basis for the invocation of the Act is formed.

Stringent Interpretation: The Court reiterated that the more stringent a penal provision, the greater the need for it to be strictly construed.

The Apex Court observed that the allegations in the FIR and the cited criminal cases must meet a threshold requirement to justify recourse to the Act. The available material must indicate a probability of the alleged offenses being committed, at a level higher than merely presumptive and the Court held that "25. Compliance and strict adherence mean that only an eyewash by making allegations with a view to set up grounds to justify resort to the Act would not suffice. Material(s) must be available to gauge the probability of commission of the alleged offence(s). Necessarily, this would have to be of a level higher than being merely presumptive."

On the vague nature of allegations, the Apex Court found that the FIR contained a certain vagueness that did not meet the threshold requirement to enable recourse to the Act. Examination of Section 2(b) and the necessity of proving violence or threat to public.

Severity of Cases: The court clarified that the cases against individuals must be serious to invoke the Act. The underlying cases should involve violence, threat, intimidation, coercion, or disturbance of public order for undue advantage, as mandated under Section 2(b) of the Act.

On the premature invocation of the Gangster Act, Supreme Court concluded that resorting to the Act seemed premature and uncalled for, especially since the complainants had also resorted to civil proceedings.

The Supreme Court, thus, allowed the appeal and quashed the FIRs, set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the allegations made in the FIR are not definitive regarding the pending criminal cases, which should be dealt with on their own merits. In the end, the Apex Court also acknowledged that guidelines had been formulated by the State for invoking the Act and expected the State machinery to adhere to these guidelines.

Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Between: JAY KISHAN AND ORS VS State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment: 12-02-2025