LAL MOHD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 741 : 2025 INSC 811

                             Lal Mohd. & Anr.
                                     v.
                            State of U.P. & Ors.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 2593 of 2025)
                                 14 May 2025
              [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       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, in which the appellants
       were already arrested and released on bail, and where no new
       act or omission had occurred between the date of registration of
       the First FIR i.e., 11.10.2022, and the preparation of the gang
       chart on 29.04.2023.

                                  Headnotes†
       Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
       Act, 1986 – s.2(b), (c) – First FIR was registered against the
       appellants and others on 11.10.2022 for alleged involvement in
       violence and vandalism following a social media post allegedly
       hurting their religious sentiments – Gang Chart was prepared
       on 29.04.2023, impugned FIR u/s.3(1), UP Gangsters Act was
       filed on 30.04.2023 – Appellants sought quashing thereof,
       refused by High Court – Interference with:
       Held: The procedural and substantive thresholds prescribed u/s.2(b)
       and 2(c), UP Gangsters Act have not been adequately met in the
       present case – The incident occurred on 10.10.2022, first FIR was
       filed on 11.10.2022 and the appellants were granted bail in January,
       2023 – No new act or omission occurred between the registration
       of the foundational FIR on 11.10.2022 and the preparation of the
       gang chart on 29.04.2023 – Thus, gang chart was prepared on
       29.04.2023 and the impugned FIR was filed on 30.04.2023, sans
       any fresh or intervening conduct – Mere listing of multiple accused
       persons without demonstrating their organizational roles, command
       structure, or evidence of prior or continued coordinated criminal
       activities fails to meet the stringent requirements for establishing
       gang membership – Thus, mere involvement of the accused
       appellants in a demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up,
* Author
742                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       however serious, does not ipso facto transform the participants
       into a ‘gang’ without evidence of organised and continuous criminal
       activity – Gang chart was a post-facto construction aimed at
       recharacterizing an already investigated and prosecuted communal
       altercation as an act of organised crime, without any new evidence
       to warrant such a serious escalation – Impugned judgment set
       aside – Impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed –
       Quashing. [Paras 17, 19, 20, 29, 30]
       Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
       Act, 1986 – s.2(b), (c) – “Gang” and “gangster” – Determination.
       [Paras 12-14]
       Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
       Act, 1986 – Constitution of India – Art.21 – Extraordinary
       legislation with stringent penal provisions – Invocation of –
       Standard of evidence – Exercise of power by State – Power
       conferred upon the State not an instrument of harassment or
       intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be
       at play. [Paras 23-26]

                               Case Law Cited
       Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2022] 17
       SCR 622 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514; State of Haryana v. Bhajan
       Lal [1991] Supp. 1 SCR 387 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Vinod
       Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 767; Gorakh Nath
       Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2589
       of 2025 – referred to.
       Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P, 1987 SCC OnLine All 203 –
       referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
       1986; Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013;
       Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; UP Gangsters
       and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021; Constitution
       of India.

                               List of Keywords
       Sections 2(b), (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social
       Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Gang; Gangster; FIR under UP
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                              743

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


     Gangsters Act; Gang chart; Quashing of FIR; Social media post;
     Incendiary social media post; Religious sentiments hurt; Communal
     protest; Communal flare-up; Protest against social media post;
     Language defamatory towards a particular religion; Disparaging
     comments about a particular religious belief; Vandalism of shop;
     Gang membership; Violence; Two different religious groups;
     Foundational FIR; Anti-social activities; Organised and continuous
     criminal activity; Prior or continued coordinated criminal activities;
     Afterthought application of the UP Gangsters Act; Colourable
     exercise of power; Extraneous considerations; Members of
     a political party; Political motivations; Chairman of the Nagar
     Panchayat; Stringent law; Organised gang; Absence of pattern of
     organized criminal behaviour; Organised crime; Serious fetters on
     personal liberty; Abuse of the legal process; Gross miscarriage of
     justice; Article 21 of Constitution of India; Impugned FIR quashed.

                              Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2593 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRMWP No. 3494
     of 2023

                           Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Mohammad Aslam , Shahid Azad, Mohd Shoaib, Mohd Asif Rander,
     Manoharan Vv, Ashraf Yusuf Khan, Ms. Nazish Fatima, Mateen
     Ahmad.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Namit Saxena, Ajay Singh.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

     Mehta, J.

1.   Heard.
2.   Leave granted.
744                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


3.     The present appeal by special leave, arises out of the final judgment
       and order dated 3rd May, 20231, passed by the learned Division
       Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2, in Criminal
       Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023, whereby the High
       Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants seeking
       quashing of First Information Report3, in CC No. 132 of 20234 dated
       30th April, 2023, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
       & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 19865, lodged at Police
       Station Khargupur, District-Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.
4.     The factual background, essential for the disposal of the instant
       appeal, is as follows:
       4.1 The appellants herein claim to be members of a political party
           in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Appellant No. 1 is a former two-
           time elected Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, and appellant
           No. 2 is the son of appellant No. 1.
       4.2 On 10th October, 2022, one Rikki Modanwal made a post on
           a social media platform in which he allegedly used language
           perceived as defamatory towards a particular religion. In
           response, several believers of that religion (including the
           appellants herein) assembled outside the shop owned by Rikki
           Modanwal raising vociferous protests against the said social
           media post. The protests escalated into violence and acts of
           vandalism between two different religious groups. Multiple
           FIR(s) were registered on 11th October 2022, against the people
           involved in the aforesaid incidents. An FIR, bearing CC No.
           294 of 20226, was registered by Sonu Modanwal nominating
           41 accused persons, which included the appellants herein, for
           offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307,
           323, 504, and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 18607 and Section 7
           of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 20138, at Police Station


1    Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”.
2    Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”.
3    For short ‘FIR’.
4    Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned FIR’
5    Hereinafter referred to as the ‘UP Gangsters Act’.
6    Hereinafter referred to as the ‘First FIR.’
7    Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’.
8    Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2013’.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         745

                       Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


             Khargupur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, a
             second FIR, bearing CC No. 296 of 20229, was registered
             by Sub-Inspector Bhole Shankar on the same date, against
             members of both religious groups (including the appellants
             and Rikki Modanwal) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332,
             336, 353, and 427 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Act 2013,
             and Sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
             Property Act, 1984, at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda,
             Uttar Pradesh. As a sequel to the investigation into the FIRs
             registered in relation to the aforesaid incident, the appellants
             herein were arrested and then released on bail.
     4.3 On 30th April, 2023, Arun Kumar Dwivedi, Inspector-in-charge,
         filed the impugned FIR against the appellants herein and 39
         other accused, under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act
         alleging inter alia, that on 10th October, 2022, at around 8:00
         P.M., a group of assailants, led by appellant No. 1, gathered
         at Rikki Modanwal’s shop in Subzi Mandi, Khargupur, armed
         with lathis and glass bottles. They reportedly hurled abuses,
         issued death threats, and vandalised the shop while protesting
         against the social media post that targeted a specific religious
         group. The incident led to fear in public, and disruption of law
         and order. A Gang Chart was prepared under the UP Gangsters
         Act and approval for registration of an FIR against the accused
         persons was granted by the District Magistrate vide sanction
         letter dated 29th April, 2023.
     4.4 Aggrieved by the registration of impugned FIR invoking the
         provisions of the UP Gangsters Act, the appellants approached
         the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by way of a criminal
         writ petition, seeking quashing of the said FIR and a direction
         to the concerned authorities to produce the gang chart, if any,
         prepared by them, on the basis of which Arun Kumar Dwivedi,
         Inspector-in-Charge, had lodged the impugned FIR. The High
         Court, vide judgment dated 3rd May, 2023, dismissed the said
         writ petition, which is assailed by the appellants herein in this
         appeal by special leave.


9   Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second FIR.’
746                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
5.     Learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently and fervently
       contended that the High Court seriously erred in rejecting the prayer
       seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. In this regard, he advanced
       the following submissions:
       5.1 That, in the present case, the two earlier FIRs, bearing CC No.
           294 and CC No. 296 of 2022, were registered on 11th October,
           2022, for the same incident, involving identical allegations and
           the same set of accused persons. The contents of both FIRs
           relate to the events that unfolded on 10th October, 2022 in Kh-
           argupur, Uttar Pradesh, leading to the arrest of the appellants
           and their subsequent release on bail upon the order of the
           competent court. However, nearly six months subsequent to
           the two earlier FIRs being registered, the impugned FIR came
           to be registered on 30th April, 2023, under the UP Gangsters
           Act, which is based entirely on the same allegations set out in
           the above two FIRs. This highly belated invocation of stringent
           law, in the absence of any intervening act or omission, gives
           rise to a strong inference of severe bias and a persecutory
           approach on the part of the prosecuting agency.
       5.2 That the allegations as set out against the appellants in the
           impugned FIR do not meet the threshold justifying invocation
           of the UP Gangsters Act, as there is no material indicating that
           they form part of a “gang” as defined under the UP Gangsters
           Act. There is no evidence/allegation against the appellants
           of repeated criminal activity, habitual behaviour, or any intent
           to gain undue pecuniary advantage. The appellants are not
           involved in any organised crime. They were simply a part of the
           spontaneous protest against the incendiary social media post
           made by Rikki Modanwal intended to hurt religious sentiments.
           They have not formed any unlawful syndicate. Their alleged
           involvement in the protest being a singular act is already being
           dealt with under regular criminal law and for which bail has
           already been granted to the appellants.
       5.3 That following their release on bail, no fresh material was
           available to the prosecuting agency indicating continuing
           criminal activity, breach of public order, or prejudicial conduct
           on the part of the appellants. The authorities are not seized
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          747

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


           of any fresh material or credible evidence to indicate that
           the appellants have subsequently committed any offence or
           participated in any gangster-like activity. The impugned FIR does
           not attribute any specific role or leadership to the appellants,
           nor does it mention any act that disturbed the peace after their
           arrest and release on bail in the previous FIRs. For invoking
           the UP Gangsters Act, there must be a demonstrable link that
           connects the accused’s actions with the disruption of public order
           through anti-social conduct, yet there is neither a clear nexus
           between the appellants and the alleged unlawful assembly that
           turned violent, nor any sustained course of conduct that can be
           concluded as intimidating or coercive to the general public. The
           UP Gangsters Act was introduced to target habitual offenders
           and organised crime syndicates, and not to penalise isolated acts
           of protest-related transgressions. Furthermore, the impugned
           FIR and gang chart only refer to one of the FIRs, i.e., CC No.
           294 of 2022, thus demonstrating the lack of credible material
           to show any persistent or systemic activity that could justify the
           invocation of the UP Gangsters Act under these facts.
     5.4 That the impugned FIR under the Gangsters Act was registered
         on 30th April, 2023, with mala fide intention. The timing of the
         FIR creates a grave doubt on its bona fides as it came to be
         registered only 13 days after appellant No. 1’s daughter-in-law
         filed her nomination for Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat
         Khargupur on 17th April, 2023. The appellants had already
         anticipated this false case and filed a representation on 25th April,
         2023, to the UP State Election Commission and Party President
         raising a concern about misuse of the UP Gangsters Act. This
         representation was filed 5 days before the FIR was actually
         registered. The proximity between the political nomination
         and the criminal case, along with the appellants’ anticipated
         expression of concern to authorities, clearly shows that the
         UP Gangsters Act is being used as a political vendetta rather
         than a genuine bona fide criminal prosecution. Therefore, the
         FIR should be quashed as it tantamounts to gross abuse of
         the process of law.
           On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants implored
           this Court to allow the present appeal, set aside the judgment
           passed by the High Court, and quash the impugned FIR.
748                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:
6.     Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, vehemently
       and fervently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the
       appellants, and urged that the High Court has rightly rejected the writ
       petition seeking the quashing of the impugned FIR. In this regard,
       he has advanced the following submissions:
       6.1 The facts disclosed in the first and second FIRs clearly show
           that the appellants led a large unlawful assembly equipped with
           weapons like lathis and glass bottles and actively participated
           in violent acts targeting civilians and police personnel alike.
           The group, acting violently, vandalised the property of Sonu
           Modanwal, created panic among local shopkeepers, and over
           and above that, caused severe disruption to public peace, law
           & order. Such coordinated violence, especially in a communally
           sensitive context, squarely falls within the ambit of ‘anti-social
           activity’ and ‘disturbance of public order’ as defined under the
           UP Gangsters Act, which is specifically designed to address
           situations where individual offences under the IPC prove
           inadequate to prevent the operation of criminal gangs that seek to
           intimidate, threaten, or gain undue advantage through violence.
       6.2 That the two earlier FIRs, namely, CC No. 294 of 2022 and
           CC No. 296 of 2022 addressed specific incidents of violence,
           while the impugned FIR relates to the appellants’ continued
           involvement in organised crime and their status as habitual
           offenders threatening public order. The UP Gangsters Act permits
           prosecution based on a pattern of conduct that demonstrates
           the existence of a gang involved in criminal activities and its
           operation over a period of time. The appellant’s conduct before
           and after bail, coupled with witness accounts and local reports,
           justifies their classification as gang members. The law does not
           require a fresh incident for invoking the UP Gangsters Act if
           existing material establishes continued unlawful activity intending
           to create fear or extract undue benefit.
       6.3 The contention raised by the appellants, that the UP Gangsters
           Act cannot be invoked merely because it refers to only one
           FIR, is misplaced and legally unsustainable. The UP Gangsters
           Act does not prescribe a numerical threshold of offences/
           FIRs for its applicability. Rather, it focuses on the nature and
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                             749

                      Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


             intent of the act, whether it amounts to an anti-social activity
             intended to disturb public order or to gain undue advantage.
             Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
             in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others10,
             wherein it was held that even a single offence or charge sheet
             can form the basis for prosecution under the UP Gangsters
             Act, provided it falls within the scope of anti-social activities
             enumerated under Section 2(b) of the Act. Thus, even if the
             prosecution is based on one or two offences, if the prejudicial
             acts involve organised crime, intimidation, or threat to public
             order, the invocation of Sections 2 and 3 of the UP Gangsters
             Act remains entirely valid and enforceable.
      6.4 The appellant’s conduct in orchestrating a violent riot on 11th
          October, 2022, which disrupted communal harmony and public
          peace, satisfies the essential requirements of the statutory
          provisions making the prosecution legally tenable.
             On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents implored
             this Court to reject the present appeal and uphold the judgment
             of the High Court.

      Analysis & Discussion
7.    We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
      advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record.
8.    Before delving into the submissions advanced by both the parties, it
      is essential to first examine the foundational principles that govern the
      quashing of complaints and criminal proceedings at the threshold. This
      Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal11, has laid down parameters
      for the quashing of an FIR and the proceedings subsequent thereto.
      The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
             “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
             relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
             the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
             decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
             under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section


10   2022 SCC OnLine SC 514.
11   (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335.
750                                                     [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
       above, we have given the following categories of cases by
       way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
       either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
       otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
       be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
       sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
       formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
       cases wherein such power should be exercised.
       (1) Where the allegations made in the first information
       report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
       face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
       facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
       the accused.
       (2) Where the allegations in the first information report
       and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
       disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
       by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
       under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
       155(2) of the Code.
       (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
       FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
       of the same do not disclose the commission of any
       offence and make out a case against the accused.
       (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
       cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
       offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
       without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
       Section 155(2) of the Code.
       (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
       are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
       which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
       that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
       accused.
       (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
       of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
       which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         751

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


           and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
           is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
           providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
           aggrieved party.
           (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
           attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
           is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
           wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
           to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

9.   The core issue, which is posed for the consideration of this Court in
     the present appeal is, 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.
10. The statutory definitions provided in Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the UP
    Gangsters Act establish the framework for determining who qualifies
    as “gang” or “gangster” under the law.
11. Gainful reference in this regard may be made to Sections 2(b) and (c)
    of the UP Gangsters Act, which are being reproduced hereinbelow :
           “2. (b) “gang” means a group of persons, who acting
           either singly or collectively, by 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 for himself or any other person,
           indulge in anti-social activities (Act No. 2 of 1974),
           namely—
                (i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or
                Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian
                Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or
                (ii) distilling or manufacturing or storing or
                transporting or importing or exporting or selling
752                                                [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                Supreme Court Reports


       or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or
       dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or narcotics
       or cultivating any plant, in contravention of any
       of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910
       (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910) or the Narcotic Drugs
       and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 or any
       other law for the time being in force, or
       (iii) occupying or talking possession of immovable
       property otherwise than in accordance with law,
       or setting up false claims for title or possession
       of immovable property whether in himself or any
       other person, or (Act No. 61 of 1985)
       (iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any
       public servant or any witness from discharging
       his lawful duties, or
       (v) offences punishable under the Suppression
       of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,
       1956, or
       (vi) offences punishable under Section 3 of
       the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act No. 104 of
       1956), or
       (vii) preventing any person from offering bids in
       auction lawfully conducted, or tender, lawfully
       invited, by or on behalf of any government
       department, local body or public or private
       undertaking for any lease or right or supply of
       goods or work to be done, or
       (viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running
       by any person of his lawful business profession,
       trade or employment or any other lawful activity
       connected therewith, or
       (ix) offences punishable under Section 171-E
       of the Indian Penal Code, or in preventing or
       obstructing any public election being lawfully
       held, by physically preventing the voter from
       exercising his electoral rights, or
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         753

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


                (x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb
                communal harmony, or
                (xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or
                (xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or
                owners or occupiers of public or private
                undertakings or factories and causing mischief
                in respect of their properties, or
                (xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person
                to go to foreign countries on false representation
                that any employment, trade or profession shall
                be provided to him in such foreign country, or
                (xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with
                intent to extort ransom, or
                (xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any aircraft
                or public transport vehicle from following its
                scheduled course;
           (c) “gangster” means a member or leader or organiser
           of a gang and includes any person who abets or
           assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause
           (b), whether before or after the commission of such
           activities or harbours any person who has indulged
           in such activities.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

12. This Court in Shraddha Gupta (supra), held that an accused can
    be termed as ‘gangster’ when he as a member of a ‘gang’, has
    indulged in any of the enumerated anti-social activities, whether by
    means expressly stated or otherwise, with the object of disturbing
    public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material
    or other advantage for himself or any other person. The relevant
    paragraph from the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
           “25. A group of persons may act collectively or any one
           of the members of the group may also act singly, with the
           object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social
           activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act,
           who can be termed as “gangster”. A member of a “gang”
754                                                             [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


             acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a
             member of the “gang” and comes within the definition of
             “gang”, provided he/she is found to have indulged in any
             of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of
             the Gangsters Act.
                                         xx
             27. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the
             statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore,
             considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act,
             1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/
             chargesheet, if it is found that the accused is a member
             of a “gang” and has indulged in any of the anti-social
             activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act,
             such as, by 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 for himself or any
             other person and he/she can be termed as “gangster”
             within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can
             be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act.”
13. While adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the UP Gangsters
    Act, a Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar
    Dixit v. State of U.P.12, held that the term ‘gang’ means a group of
    persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation,
    or coercion, or otherwise indulge in anti-social activities with the
    object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue or pecuniary
    material or other advantage for himself. The relevant paragraph is
    reproduced below:
             “12. Section 2(b) defines the term “Gang” to mean a group
             of persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence or
             intimidation or coercion etc. indulge in anti-social activities
             with the object of disturbing public order of gaining any
             undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage
             for himself. S. 2(b) read as a whole necessarily brings in
             the concept of violence or intimidation or coercion etc.


12   1987 SCC OnLine All 203.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        755

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


           which is resorted to for gaining material advantage. Then
           we have cl. (c) of S. 2 which defines the word “Gangster”.
           It means a member or leader or organiser of a group
           which indulges in the kind of activities set out under the
           various sub-clauses of cl. (b) of S. 2, by use of violence
           or threat or show of violence or intimidation etc. S. 3(i)
           lays down the penalty for being the member or leader or
           organiser of a group which engages or indulges in the
           kind of unsocial activities enumerated under S. 2(b) by
           use of violence etc.”
14. From the above statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the
    legal position concerning the determination of “gang” and “gangster”
    under the UP Gangsters Act, has been well-defined. The statutory
    scheme delineates that a “gang” constitutes a group of persons who,
    whether acting singularly or in concert, perpetrate the enumerated
    anti-social activities through the instrumentality of violence, threat,
    intimidation, or coercion with the manifest object of either disturbing
    public order or procuring undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other
    advantages. From the above exposition of law, a group of persons
    may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or
    collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activities enumerated
    in Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or
    otherwise, and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public
    order, or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other
    advantage for himself or any other person.
15. The impugned FIR dated 30th April, 2023, lodged by Inspector Arun
    Kumar Dwivedi, narrates that the appellants led an organised gang
    whose members, armed with lathis and glass bottles, attacked the
    shop owned by Vipin Modanwal and others over a social media
    post disparaging a specific religion, which created chaos, terror and
    disrupted public order. The impugned FIR reads thus:
           “Copy of application/complaint in Hindi written by Head
           Constable (HM), Police station Kharagpur, District
           Gonda…….
           I, Inspector, Incharge, Arun Kumar Dwivedi alongwith S.I.
           Akhilesh Yadav, S.I. Diwakar Mishra, Head Constable
           Munawar Ali, Head Constable Raj Kishore, Constable
           Satyajit Morya, constable Ritesh Gupta, W/Ct. Shilpa
756                                                   [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       Yadav, W/Ct. Satakshi Shukla in government vehicle UP
       43 G 0352 with its driver Constable Umender Yadav was
       on the patrolling of the area for controlling the crimes.
       Meanwhile I came to know that accused persons Lal Mohd.
       son of Munir Ahmed resident of Pure Harwahanpurwa,
       Kharagpur town District Gonda has an organized gang.
       He alongwith his accomplices Ramzan son of Usman Gani
       resident of Pure Harwahanpurwa, Kharagpur town, police
       station Kharagpur District Gonda, Rehman son of Usman
       Gani resident of Rastogi Mohalla, Kharagpur town, police
       station Kharagpur District Gonda, Lukman son of Usman
       Gani resident of Mohalla Rastogi, Kharagpur town, police
       station Kharagpur District Gonda, Shamsher Ali son of
       Mohd. Vaki resident of Thakurganj, Kharagpur town, police
       station Kharagpur District Gonda, Mohd. Yusuf son of Ali
       Raza resident of Old Bazar, Kharagpur town, police station
       Kharagpur District Gonda, Tanvir Ali son of Shamsher Ali
       resident of Thakurganj, Kharagpur town, District Gonda,
       Taukir Ali son of Shamsher Ali resident of Thakurganj,
       Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Mohd. Waris son of Wali
       Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town,
       District Gonda, Yasin son of Sabir resident of Chikwa
       Badhiya, Kharagpur town, District, Gonda, Sakir son of Idu
       resident Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Nakane son of
       Usman Ali resident of Rastogi Mohalla, Kharagpur town,
       District Gonda, Mohd. Akram son of Wali Mohd. resident
       of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District Gonda,
       Aslam son of Wali Mohd. resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa,
       Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Liyakat son of Aliraza
       resident of Old Bazar, Kharagpur town, District Gonda,
       Siraz Ali son of Hamid Ali resident of Darzi, Kharagpur
       town West, District Gonda, Meraz son of Salim resident of
       Kharagpur town West, District Gonda, Rehmat Ali son of
       Hamid Ali resident of Kathariya Mohalla, Kharagpur town,
       District Gonda, Noor Alam son of Nazir resident of Darzi,
       Kharagpur town East, District Gonda, Nazir son of Badal
       resident of Kharagpur town East, District Gonda, Rizwan
       son of Ramzan Ali resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa,
       Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Ramzan Ali son of Munir
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          757

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


           Ahmed resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town,
           District Gonda, Jahir alias Jahiruddin son of Lal Mohd.
           resident of Pure Harwahan Purwa, Kharagpur town, District
           Gonda, Asif son of Shabir resident of Kharagpur town,
           District Gonda, Arif son of Shabir resident of Kharagpur
           town, District Gonda, Mohd. Shamim alias Nibaru son of
           Shafi resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Danish
           son of Ali Mohd, resident of Kharagpur town, District
           Gonda, Sonu son of Lallu resident of Kharagpur town,
           District Gonda, Banthe son of Shyam Mohd. resident of
           Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Zuber son of Teni resident
           of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Sakil son of Sabbir
           resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Sameer son
           of Sabbir resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda,
           Arbaz son of Mobin resident of Kharagpur town, District
           Gonda, Imran son of Chhotu alias Shafikurrehman resident
           of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Azad alias Aizaz son
           of Irfan resident of Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Saif
           son of Manuddin resident of Kathariya town, Kharagpur,
           District Gonda, Azmat Ali son of Tinai resident of Old
           Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Rizwan son of
           Abdul Hamid resident of Darzi East, Kharagpur town,
           District Gonda, Jokhu son of Tinai resident of Old Bazar
           Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Asif alias Raj son of Raju
           resident of Old Bazar Kharagpur town, District Gonda,
           Mohd. Imran son of Rafique resident of Pure Harwahan
           Purwa Kharagpur town, District Gonda, Gulam Haider son
           of Bakridi resident of Old Bazar Kharagpur town, District
           Gonda organized with their common intention, on the
           comments made on Mohd. Prophet on 10.10.2022 at
           8.00 PM at the shop of Vipin Modanwal situated at Subji
           Mandi, Kharagpur town having lathis and glass bottles
           in their hands, hurled abuses and by extending threat to
           kill, they started vandalizing the shop. When they were
           forbade to do so, then they started attacking at Vipin,
           Sonu, Durgesh, Sarvesh at their heads with lathis, wooden
           sticks and glass bottles with intention to kill them. Due to
           this there was a chaotic situation in the market and
           shopkeepers started running away by closing their
758                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          shops. Consequently it created an atmosphere of
          fear and terror in entire area and disturbed the law
          and order. This organized gang/group was being led
          by Lal Mohd. son of Munir Ahmed. Due to criminal
          acts committed by aforementioned gang and its
          members, general public has suffered with heavy
          financial loss and law and order remained disturbed
          for many days in the area due to disturbance of social
          and religious harmony. Crime case under sections
          147/148/149/427/307/323/504/506 of Indian Penal Code
          and section 7 of C.L.A. Act was registered against accused
          persons and after completion of investigation, charge
          sheet has been forwarded to the Hon’ble Court, which
          is under consideration of Hon’ble Court. Act committed
          by accused persons falls under the category of offence
          mentioned in Chapters 16 and 22 of the Indian Penal
          Code. It is not interest in the general public that they set
          scot free in the society. Offence committed by the accused
          persons falls under the purview of section 2(Kha) of Uttar
          Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
          Act, 1986. In order to curb these criminal acts of these
          accused persons and in order to control the crime, a Gang
          Chart has got prepared under section 3(1) of the Uttar
          Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
          Act, 1986 and in reference to approval accorded by the
          District Magistrate, Gonda on 29.04.2023, gangster case
          be registered against Gang Leader Lal Mohd. above named
          and his above named members. Note - I, Inspector Incharge
          has got written this complaint through S.I. Diwakar on my
          dictation on the spot. Sd/- in English Illegible (Arun Kumar
          Dwivedi), Inspector Incharge, police station Kharagpur
          District Gonda. Dated: 30.04.2023. Note - I, Nitish Mani
          Tripathi do certify that contents of written complaint have
          been mentioned by me in verbatim in CCTNS except
          typographical errors.”
                                                (emphasis supplied)

16. A careful scrutiny of the impugned FIR reveals crucial deficiencies and
    fundamental flaws. The impugned FIR merely refers to an isolated
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        759

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


     incident that occurred on 10th October 2022, involving allegations of
     vandalism at Vipin Modanwal’s shop following disparaging comments
     made about a particular religious belief by Rikki Modanwal which the
     appellants follow. The absence of any subsequent criminal acts or
     pattern of organized criminal behavior between the foundational FIR
     (Case Crime No. 294 of 2022) registered on 11th October, 2022 and
     the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023 demonstrates
     that this single criminal incident dated 10th October, 2022, regardless
     of its severity, does not constitute a sustained pattern of activities.
17. While the FIR alleges that, appellant No. 1, lead an ‘organized gang’
    with numerous co-accused, it provides no substantive evidence of
    hierarchical structure, systematic planning, or coordinated criminal
    activities that would distinguish this group from a group of individuals
    involved in a spontaneous communal protest. The impugned FIR
    contains a mere conjectural statement, neither corroborated nor
    substantiated by the facts available on record. The impugned FIR’s
    narrative suggests a reactive response to instigation caused by an
    inflammatory religious post rather than premeditated gang activity.
    The mere listing of multiple accused persons without demonstrating
    their organizational roles, command structure, or evidence of prior or
    continued coordinated criminal activities fails to meet the stringent
    requirements for establishing gang membership.
18. The whole incident appears to have been triggered by the incendiary
    social media post made by Rikki Mondalwal tending to defile the
    religious sentiments of the appellants and other co-accused rather
    than by calculated gang objectives of securing material advantages
    or establishing territorial control. Furthermore, the FIR does not
    demonstrate any pattern of the offending group engaging in the
    enumerated anti-social activities beyond this single incident, thereby
    failing to establish the sustained criminal enterprise that the UP
    Gangsters Act is designed to address.
19. It is an undisputed fact that no new act or omission occurred
    between the registration of the first FIR on 11th October, 2022 and
    the preparation of the gang chart on 29th April, 2023. This temporal
    gap, devoid of any additional criminal activity, undermines the
    prosecution’s endeavour to demonstrate ongoing gang operations or
    escalating criminal behaviour that would justify the invocation of the
    UP Gangsters Act. Mere involvement of the accused appellants in a
760                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       demonstration pursuant to a communal flare-up, however serious,
       does not ipso facto transform the participants into a ‘gang’ without
       evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity. Moreover,
       the impugned FIR fails to distinguish adequately between the roles
       of the nominated accused persons.
20. In the present case, the incident occurred on 10th October, 2022, and
    the appellants were granted bail in January, 2023, after the competent
    courts found no criminal history and only simple injuries resulting
    from the altercation. The gang chart was prepared and approved
    on 29th April, 2023, and the impugned FIR was registered on 30th
    April, 2023, sans any fresh or intervening conduct. This sequence
    indicates that the gang chart was manifestly a post-facto construction
    aimed at recharacterizing an already investigated and prosecuted
    communal altercation as an act of organised crime, without any new
    evidence to warrant such a serious escalation.
21. Furthermore, the impugned FIR was registered coincidentally just 13
    days after appellant No. 1’s daughter-in-law filed her nomination for
    the Chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur on 17th April, 2023.
    The appellants’ representation dated 25th April, 2023 addressed to the
    UP-State Election Commission and the Party President, regarding the
    possibility of false implication under the UP Gangsters Act, preceded
    the actual registration of the FIR. This timing lends credence to their
    contention that the Act may have been weaponised for extraneous
    considerations.
22. When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the UP Gangsters
    Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and
    dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public
    order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single
    incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post
    made by one against a particular religion represents a significant
    departure from its legislative purpose. The afterthought application
    of the UP Gangsters Act in the present case, in absence of any
    subsequent criminal conduct of the appellant, bears the hallmark of
    colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act’s
    legitimate objectives.
23. It is trite law that any procedure prescribed by law must be fair,
    just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, presumption, or oppressive.
    This principle, firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         761

                       Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


      forms the cornerstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which
      guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty
      except according to procedure established by law.
24. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater
    significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions,
    such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the State has broad
    discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised
    judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with
    the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the State cannot be
    wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly
    where political motivations may be at play.
25. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary
    penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular
    procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that
    meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials
    relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused
    and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of
    involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. When a statute
    creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation
    for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by
    concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.
26. In the present case, 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 as contemplated by the Act. With the trial in the previous
    FIR remaining inconclusive, 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.
27. Before concluding, we would like to make a reference to a recent
    Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gorakh Nath
    Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh13, whereby the State of Uttar
    Pradesh was directed to consider framing guidelines-cum-parameters
    which are to be followed before invoking provisions of the UP


13   Criminal Appeal No. 2589 of 2025.
762                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Gangsters Act. In compliance with that directive, the Uttar Pradesh
       State Government vide Office Memorandum Office Memorandum-
       Circular No. 4619, framed guidelines for invoking the provisions of the
       UP Gangsters Act, directing strict compliance with those guidelines,
       read with the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
       Rules, 2021 framed under the UP Gangsters Act, regarding the
       preparation of the gang chart. The said guidelines have also been
       made part of a judgment in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal v. State
       of Uttar Pradesh.14
28. These guidelines were not placed on record by the appellants in
    the present case (as they were issued subsequent to the filing of
    this petition), however, upon a prima facie examination, it appears
    to us that the invocation of the UP Gangsters Act in the present
    matter would not withstand scrutiny even under these guidelines
    which emphasise the need for rigorous assessment of the gravity
    of underlying offences, established patterns of criminal activity, and
    proper verification of criminal antecedents before invoking the Act.
    The allegations in the present case fail to meet this rigour. However,
    we clarify that this observation is based purely on the facts of this
    case and not a definitive finding on the application of the guidelines,
    which were not subject to adversarial scrutiny in the present appeal.
29. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, we are of the
    view that the procedural and substantive thresholds prescribed
    under Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the UP Gangsters Act have not
    been adequately met in the present case. Hence, the impugned FIR
    dated 30th April, 2023, namely CC No. 132 of 2023, does not stand
    to scrutiny. The impugned judgment dated 3rd May, 2023, rendered
    by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
    Allahabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3494 of 2023,
    stands set aside.
30. The impugned FIR CC No. 132 of 2023 and all proceedings
    consequential thereto stand quashed. However, we deem it proper
    to clarify that our observations and analysis on the foundational FIRs
    are strictly circumscribed to the limited purpose of evaluating the
    impugned FIR under the UP Gangsters Act and will not have any


14   2025 INSC 267.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                  763

                    Lal Mohd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.


     bearing on the two pending FIRs, namely, CC No. 294 of 2022 and
     CC No. 296 of 2022, which shall be dealt with on their own merits
     by the Courts concerned.
31. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
32. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey