Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 12, 2025, said, ultimately, the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be overlooked only due to the reason that criminal cases have been registered against a person as it quashed proceedings against three men under the stringent UP Gangster Act.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, it would be plainly unwise to accord any unfettered discretion to the authorities concerned when it comes to invoking the Act.

"The more stringent or penal a provision, greater the emphasis and requirement for it to be strictly construed," the bench said.

The court here allowed an appeal filed by Jai Kishan, Kuldeep Katara and Krishna Katara against the Allahabad High Court's judgment of January 17, 2024, holding that the invoking the stringent provisions was uncalled for and premature.

"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. The severity required for the underlying case(s), we think, ought not to be judicially strait-jacketed as a lot would turn on the specific peculiarities of each case," the bench said.

The court asked the Uttar Pradesh government to adhere to the guidelines with regard to slapping the charges under the Act, framed after a direction by a coordinate bench on December 12, 2024.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the 2023 FIR, under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, lodged at Police Station - Bamrauli Katara, District - Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

The appellants contended the allegations which formed the basis for invoking the Act were civil in nature, arising out property disputes, did not relate to any anti-social activity. A purely civil dispute was being given a criminal colour by the de-facto complainant. For one property and on the same cause of action, despite civil suit pending, the case has been registered against the appellants, their counsel said.

They said the present case is a blatant example of misuse, by the State, of the provisions of the Act, which has been enacted to control criminal gangs from terrorising the public and/or disturbing public peace and tranquillity, their counsel added.

The respondents, on the contrary, claimed the three appellants are hardened criminals and are running a gang. They are involved in various criminal activities like extortion, fraudulent property dealings, goondaism, etc. They intimidate innocent and law-abiding persons of the area, they alleged.

They said the High Court rightly dismissed their writ petition as the investigation was at nascent stage.

Their counsel also said the civil suit does not exonerate the appellants from criminal liability.

They said even one single case against the person concerned can make him liable to be charged under the Act, as held by this court in Shraddha Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022).

The bench, however, said scrutiny of the cases cited in the FIR to invoke the Act against the appellants prima facie revealed that the same substantially related to and emanated 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 crime case 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," the bench said.

Citing Mohammad Wajid Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023), the court said its reference to lifting the veil finds resonance in the ‘read in between the lines’ approach in the judgment.

"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," the bench said.

After going through three crime cases which found reference in the FIR, the bench said a glance would exhibit a certain vagueness.

"In our considered opinion, 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. We may hasten to add that not for a minute are we to be misunderstood to mean that the Act cannot be invoked basis pending cases," the bench explained.

The court pointed out, the situation would be very different though, if the allegations levelled in the underlying case(s) had been proved at trial - it could have been a good ground to sustain and justify action under the Act.

"In that scenario, we would have ordinarily refrained from any interdiction," the bench said.

In the present matter, the court pointed out, 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," the bench said.

The court further said assuming that all the allegations are correct, there is no mention of any instance, post registration of the said cases, of the appellants implementing or 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, resort to the Act by the State seems premature and uncalled for," the court said.

The court thus quashed the FIR and set aside the High Court's judgment.

Case Title: Jai Kishan And Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors