The Supreme Court of India quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed under the stringent Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (UP Gangsters Act). The Court emphasized that invoking such harsh laws requires rigorous scrutiny, especially when allegations stem from civil disputes.

Background of the Case

The case involved three appellants—Jay Kishan, Kuldeep Katara, and Krishna Katara—accused of running a criminal gang involved in extortion, fraud, and intimidation. The Uttar Pradesh Police registered the FIR in 2023, citing three prior criminal cases (CC Nos. 119/2022, 58/2023, and 60/2023) under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to property disputes.

The appellants argued these cases were civil in nature, arising from family conflicts over land and monetary transactions. They claimed the State misused the UP Gangsters Act to criminalize disputes pending in civil courts.

The Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah underscored that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees life and personal liberty, must be prioritized even when criminal cases are pending.

“The right to life and liberty cannot be overlooked merely because criminal cases have been registered. Authorities must exercise caution before invoking stringent laws like the UP Gangsters Act.”

The Court clarified that the Act should apply only to severe offenses involving violence, intimidation, or coercion—not civil disputes.

“The Act is meant to curb criminal gangs terrorizing society. Its invocation demands more than superficial allegations—it requires proof of anti-social activities disturbing public order.”

The judgment highlighted the need to “lift the veil” and assess the true nature of complaints. While the FIR cited IPC sections, the Court found the core issues were monetary and property disputes between families.

“Mere inclusion of IPC sections doesn’t justify using the UP Gangsters Act. Courts must examine whether allegations genuinely threaten public peace.”

The Bench noted that trials in the three cited cases were ongoing, and no evidence proved the appellants’ involvement in gang-related crimes. Thus, labeling them as “gangsters” was premature.