The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against former Nagar Panchayat Chairman Lal Mohd. and his son, ruling that there was no material to support the allegation of organised crime. The Court held that invocation of the Gangsters Act in such circumstances “would constitute a manifest abuse of the legal process and result in a gross miscarriage of justice.”
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the judgment in Lal Mohd. & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors. allowing the appeal against the May 3, 2023 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the appellants’ writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Background
The case arose from incidents on October 10, 2022, in Khargupur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh, following a social media post allegedly defaming a religion. Protests escalated into violence. Two FIRs—CC No. 294 and CC No. 296 of 2022—were registered the following day under various sections of the IPC and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The appellants were arrested and later granted bail.
Nearly six months later, on April 30, 2023, a third FIR (CC No. 132 of 2023) was lodged against them under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act. This was based on the same incident. The FIR alleged that the appellants, along with others, were part of an organised gang that attacked a shop with lathis and glass bottles, causing public disorder and fear.
Appellants’ Submissions
Counsel for the appellants argued that:
- The FIR under the Gangsters Act was registered belatedly and without any fresh act or omission.
- The alleged conduct involved only one incident already covered by prior FIRs, and there was no evidence of repeated or organised criminal activity.
- The timing of the FIR—just 13 days after appellant No. 1’s daughter-in-law filed her nomination for Nagar Panchayat elections—pointed to political motivation.
- The FIR and gang chart lacked concrete material or any indication of a gang structure or intent to gain undue advantage.
State’s Submissions
In opposition, the State submitted that:
- The appellants led an unlawful assembly that engaged in communal violence, disturbing public order.
- The Gangsters Act can be invoked even for a single incident if it meets the statutory definition of anti-social activity.
- The prosecution was based on lawful approval by the District Magistrate and included a gang chart prepared as per the statute.
Court’s Analysis
Referring to Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the UP Gangsters Act, the Court held that there was no material to show that the appellants were part of an organised gang or engaged in repeated criminal conduct. It noted that the FIR referred only to the October 2022 incident and failed to establish any continuing pattern of gang-related behaviour:
“This single criminal incident dated 10th October, 2022, regardless of its severity, does not constitute a sustained pattern of activities.”
The Bench found that the impugned FIR lacked evidence of:
- Hierarchical gang structure or coordination;
- Organised or continued criminal conduct post-bail;
- Any material gain, intimidation, or disruption of public order beyond the isolated incident.
The FIR, the Court observed, appeared to be a reaction to a communal flare-up caused by an allegedly defamatory social media post rather than an act of organised crime. It stated:
“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 probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity.”
Importantly, the Court highlighted:
“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.”
The Court also took note of the timing of the FIR, observing that it came just after the political nomination of the appellant’s family member and a prior written representation to the authorities. This, the Court said, lent credence to the allegation of “colourable exercise of power.”
Decision
Setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court quashed FIR CC No. 132 of 2023 dated April 30, 2023, and all consequential proceedings. It clarified that the two earlier FIRs—CC Nos. 294 and 296 of 2022—would continue independently and would be decided on their own merits.
