SC Quashes Gangsters Act FIR Over One-Time Protest

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Lal Mohd. & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 685) ruled that a person’s involvement in a single incident—such as a riot or communal clash—does not justify invoking the stringent Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court emphasized that credible evidence of habitual or organized criminal behaviour is essential for using such harsh laws.

Background of the Case

In this case there were two appellant which  claim to be affiliated with a political party in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 1^stAppellant is a former two-time elected Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, while 2^nd Appellant is his son.

On October 10, 2022, tensions erupted in Uttar Pradesh after a man named Rikki Modanwal posted a social media comment that allegedly defamatory  remarks against a particular religious sentiment. The post sparked protests of the follower of that religion outside Rikki’s shop, where both appellants—Lal Mohd. and another individual—were present. The situation escalated into a violent communal clash, causing vandalism, injuries, and damage to property.

Following the incident, the police registered multiple FIRs on October 11, 2022. One FIR, numbered CC no. 294/2022 was filed by Sonu Modanwal and he named 41 people including the two appellants as accused. The FIR listed serious criminal charges like rioting,(with deadly weapons ),unlawful assembly, mischief, attempt to commit murder, hurt, breach of peace and criminal intimidation. This FIR was registered at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

Second FIR  numbered  CC No. 296 of 20229, was registered by Sub-Inspector Bhole Shankar on the same date i.e. ( October 11, 2022), against members of both religious groups (including the appellants and Rikki Modanwal). The FIR listed serious criminal charges like  rioting,(with deadly weapons ),unlawful assembly, mischief , hurt public servant, endanger life or personal safety , assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty under IPC and also Molesting a person to prejudice of employment or business under Criminal Law Amendment 2013 and also Mischief Causing Damage to Public Property under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 .

However, on April 30, 2023—months after the original incident— Inspector-in-Charge Arun Kumar Dwivedi  registered another FIR under the UP Gangsters Act, filing against appellant and other 39 individual . As this FIR 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 through sanction letter dated 29th April, 2023.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The appellants challenged the FIR under the Gangsters Act, contending that:

The High Court made a mistake by refusing to cancel the FIR filed under the UP Gangsters Act. He explained that the two earlier FIRs (CC No. 294 and 296 of 2022) were both about the same protest incident that took place on 10th October 2022, and that the appellants were already granted bail in those cases .The appellants had only participated in a protest triggered by a social media post that hurt religious sentiments — there was no evidence showing that they were part of any criminal gang or that they committed any repeated or organised crimes for personal gain .Since being granted bail, the appellants had not committed any further offence. The timing of the FIR raised suspicion: it was registered just 13 days after one appellant’s daughter-in-law filed her nomination for local elections. They had even alerted authorities about potential misuse of the law for political vendetta.

High Court’s Ruling

The appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. They filed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and requesting the production of the gang chart on the basis of which the FIR had been registered. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition through its judgment dated 3rd May 2023. Challenging this decision, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court by way of special leave.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

While examining the petition, the Supreme Court referred to the Bhajan Lal guidelines and reiterated that FIRs can be quashed if:

·      No offence is made out even if all allegations are true.

·      The complaint is absurd or improbable.

·      It is filed with mala fide intent, such as political revenge.

·      The application of a stringent law like the Gangsters Act lacks credible evidence.

Key Observations by the Court:

No evidence of gang activity: The appellants were not part of any gang as per the definition in the Act. The law requires a pattern of organized, repeated criminal acts for personal or financial gain. Here, the protest appeared spontaneous and not part of an organised crime syndicate.

No ongoing threat: The FIR lacked mention of any continuing crimes or gang structure—such as a hierarchy or a chain of command.

Political motive suspected: The Court took note of the timing of the FIR, which coincided with local elections and the warning letter sent by the appellants to the Election Commission.

Misuse of stringent laws: The Court cautioned against the misapplication of harsh laws like the Gangsters Act, highlighting that such statutes require strict procedural safeguards and strong factual grounds.

Violation of 2023 Guidelines: The authorities failed to conduct a mandatory criminal background check before invoking the Act, as per the newly introduced 2023 Guidelines.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court:

·      Quashed the FIR (CC No. 132 of 2023) registered under the UP Gangsters Act.

·      Set aside the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to do so.

·      Clarified that the original FIRs (CC Nos. 294 & 296 of 2022) would continue to proceed in accordance with the law.

Read Judgment

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces a crucial legal principle: Extraordinary laws demand extraordinary caution. The Supreme Court’s intervention serves as a reminder to law enforcement that criminal statutes, especially those with sweeping powers, must not be misused for political purposes or to harass individuals. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, a one-time protest—however unfortunate—cannot become a gateway to label someone a gangster without credible and consistent evidence.

Verdicto will continue to follow this story closely, bringing you legal insights, expert interviews, and fact-based analysis.

Stay tuned. Because where law meets journalism — truth must prevail.

📌 Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter for more updates.