UP Gangsters Act | Strict Scrutiny Essential When FIR Registered Under Stringent Laws : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 12) ruled that strict scrutiny of the FIR is required registered under stringent laws like the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act to prevent its misuse in property or financial disputes.

The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be disregarded solely based on the registration of a criminal offense. Furthermore, it ruled that authorities cannot be given unrestricted discretion in invoking the stringent provisions of the Act.

“Ultimately, the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be overlooked only due to the reason that criminal cases have been registered against a person. 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 court observed.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah quashed a criminal case against three individuals registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”), upon noting that a property dispute between the parties led to the culmination of an FIR under the Gangsters Act.

Upon perusing the contents of the FIR, the Court found nothing to suggest that the individuals were involved in gang activity involving public intimidation or organized crime.

The judgment authored by Justice Amanullah noted that the Courts must ensure strict adherence to statutory requirements before allowing prosecution under stringent laws like the Gangsters Act.

Reference was drawn to the recent case of Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v State of Assam, where the Court observed that “If special provisions are made in derogation to the general right of a citizen, the statute, in our opinion, should receive strict construction.”

The Court also referred to the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of UP (2023) noting that the Courts must look beyond mere allegations and ensure that cases under special laws meet the statutory threshold.

“Assuming that all the allegations in the three (or four, including the CC not referred to in the FIR) CCs are correct, there is no mention of any instance, post registration of the said CCs, of the appellants implementing/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 from the above, resort to the Act by the State seems premature and uncalled for.”, the Court observed.

Against this backdrop, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the case against the Appellants.

Case Title: JAY KISHAN AND ORS V THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 196

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anu Sawhney, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Ms. Purnima Jain, Adv. Mr. Satpal Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Divya Bhardwaj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv. Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kr. Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yash Giri, Adv. Mr. Anuj Shukla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Giri, AOR