Supreme Court Holds That Participation in Communal Protest Alone Cannot Attract UP Gangsters Act in Absence of Organised or Continuous Criminal Conduct; Quashes FIR Against Political Party Members, Citing Misuse of Law and Vague Allegations

Case title:
Lal Mohd. & Anr. v State of U.P. & Ors.

Date of Order:
May 14, 2025

Bench:
Hon'ble Justice VIKRAM NATH
Hon’ble Justice SANDEEP MEHTA

Parties:
Lal Mohd. & Anr. - Appellant
State of U.P. & Ors. - Defendant

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court quashed a FIR under the UP Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act, 1986, against individuals linked to a political party, citing a lack of evidence of organized or continuous criminal activity. The Court held that mere involvement in a protest following a communal incident does not automatically make participants part of a “gang.” The appeal challenged an Allahabad High Court judgment that had refused to quash the FIR. The bench, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, found the FIR vague and the Act's application an
abuse of power and approved the appeal.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Section 2(b) – Gang
This section defines a "gang" as:
A group of persons, who individually or collectively, by violence, threat,intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means, with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for themselves or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities.

Section 2(c) – Gangster
This section defines a "gangster" as:
A person who is or has been a member of a gang and is involved in anti-social activities, either directly or indirectly.

OVERVIEW

1. The appellants, a former two-time elected Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat and his son,
   claim to be members of a political party in Uttar Pradesh. 1
2. On October 10, 2022, one Rikki Modanwal posted defamatory language on social media, leading to protests and vandalism between two religious’ groups. The protests escalated into
   violence and vandalism, and multiple FIRs were registered against the individuals involved in the incidents on October 11, 2022. The appellants are seeking compensation for the harm caused. 2
3. Sonu Modanwal registered a FIR in 2026, naming 41 accused persons, including the appellants, for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.Sub-Inspector Bhole Shankar registered a second FIR in 2029, targeting members of both religious groups, including the appellants and Rikki Modanwal. The appellants were arrested and released on bail following the investigation into the FIRs related to the incident. 3
4. Arun Kumar Dwivedi (Inspector in Charge) filed a FIR against 39 accused individuals under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act, alleging abuse, death threats, and vandalism at a shop in Subzi Mandi, Khargupur, on October 10, 2022. The incident led to widespread public fear and disruption of law and order. A Gang Chart was prepared and a FIR was registered. 4
5. Aggrieved by the FIR registered under the UP Gangsters Act, the appellants filed a criminal writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, seeking its quashing and a direction to produce the gang chart, if any, relied upon by Inspector Arun Kumar Dwivedi. The High Court dismissed the petition on 3rd May 2023, leading to this appeal by special leave. 5

ISSUE RAISED

• 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., 11th October, 2022, and the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

1. Learned counsel for the appellants strongly argued that the High Court erred in rejecting the plea to quash the impugned FIR. He submitted that two earlier FIRs were already registered on 11th October 2022 for the same incident, involving identical allegations and the same accused. Both FIRs relate to events of 10th October 2022 in Khargupur, Uttar Pradesh, which
   led to the appellants’ arrest and later release on bail by the competent court. 6
2. However, nearly six months after the earlier FIRs, the impugned FIR was registered on 30th April 2023 under the UP Gangsters Act, based entirely on the same allegations. The delayed invocation of a stringent law, without any intervening act or omission, suggests a clear bias and a persecutory intent on the part of the prosecuting agency. 7
3. The FIR lacks grounds to invoke the UP Gangsters Act, as there's no evidence the appellants belong to a gang or engage in organized crime. They have no history of habitual offences or intent for unlawful gain. Their involvement was limited to a one-time protest against an offensive social media post, already addressed under regular criminal law, with bail granted. 8
4. Invocation of the UP Gangsters Act requires a clear link between the accused's actions and disruption of public order through sustained anti-social conduct. Here, there is no such nexus,no evidence of continued or coercive behavior, nor the appellants' involvement in organized crime. The Act targets habitual offenders, not one-off protest-related incidents. Moreover, the FIR and gang chart rely solely on a FIR showing no credible or systemic basis for invoking the Act. 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

1. Per contra, learned counsel for the State strongly opposed the appellants' submissions,supporting the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition. He argued that the FIRs reveal the appellants led a large, armed, unlawful assembly that engaged in violence against civilians and police, vandalized property, and disrupted public order. 10
2. Such coordinated and communal violence, he contended, constitutes 'anti-social activity' under the UP Gangsters Act, which is intended to address organized violence where ordinary IPC provisions are insufficient. 11
3. It was further submitted that while the earlier 2 FIRs of 2022 address specific incidents, the impugned FIR targets the appellants' continued involvement in organized crime and their status as habitual offenders. The UP Gangsters Act allows prosecution based on a pattern of conduct over time. 12
4. Their actions, both before and after bail, along with witness statements and local reports, support their classification as gang members. A fresh incident is not required if existing material shows ongoing unlawful activity aimed at creating fear or gaining undue advantage. 13
5. The State further argued that the appellants’ claim that the UP Gangsters Act cannot be invoked based on a single FIR is legally unfounded. The Act does not require multiple FIRs but focuses on whether the act constitutes anti-social activity intended to disturb public order or gain undue advantage. 14
6. The case of Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh was cited, it was emphasized that even a single offence or charge sheet can justify action under the Act if it meets the criteria under Section 2(b). The appellants’ role in the violent riot of 11th October 2022, which disrupted communal harmony, meets these statutory requirements, making the prosecution lawful and justified. 15

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

1. This Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, laid down parameters for quashing an FIR and related proceedings. One such ground is:(1) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and
   accepted in full, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 16
2. Furthermore, in the case of in Shraddha Gupta (supra) ruled that an accused can be considered a 'gangster' if they engage in anti-social activities as a member of a gang, with the intention of disrupting public order or gaining undue advantage. 17
3. It was also highlighted that the division bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. ruled that a gang refers to a group of individuals who engage in anti-social activities to disrupt public order or gain personal advantage, thereby determining the constitutionality of the UP Gangsters Act. 18
4. The incident appears to have been sparked by an inflammatory social media post by Rikki Modanwal, which hurt the religious sentiments of the appellants and others, rather than by any calculated gang objective such as gaining material benefit or territorial control.Moreover, the FIR does not indicate any recurring pattern of anti-social activities beyond this lone event, thus failing to establish the kind of sustained criminal enterprise the UP Gangsters Act aims to target. 19
5. Now, the accused appellants' involvement in a communal flare-up does not automatically transform them into a gang without evidence of organized and continuous criminal activity. 20
6. The impugned FIR fails to distinguish between the roles of the nominated accused persons, indicating that the gang chart was a post facto construction aimed at recharacterizing an already investigated communal altercation as an act of organized crime without new evidence. 21
7. Criminal law requires that statutes be invoked based on credible and substantial evidence,demonstrating a clear link between the accused and the alleged criminal activity. These laws should be grounded in concrete facts, not vague or presumptive claims. In this case, the FIR and gang chart fall short of this standard, relying more on assumptions than solid evidence.
8. Subjecting the appellants to fresh prosecution under the UP Gangsters Act is an abuse of process and a grave miscarriage of justice. 22

CONCLUSION

The analysis reveals that the procedural and substantive requirements of Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the UP Gangsters Act have not been met in this case, resulting in the inability to sustain the impugned FIR dated 30th April 2023. The Allahabad High Court's judgment was set aside, and all proceedings are quashed. The findings only pertain to the validity of the impugned FIR under the Gangsters Act.