JAY KISHAN AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 11-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 65 : 2025 INSC 198
Jay Kishan and Ors. 
v. 
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 727 of 2025)
12 February 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition 
filed by the appellants for quashing the FIR under Sections 2 
and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1986. FIR against the appellants, if ought to 
be quashed.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1986 – ss.2, 3 – Penal Code, 1860 – 
ss.420/406/120B/504/395/427/506 – Constitution of India – 
Article 21 – The allegations in the Criminal Cases (CCs) cited 
in the FIR to invoke the Gangsters Act against the appellants 
were civil in nature – FIR against the appellants, if ought to 
be quashed:
Held: Yes – Cases cited in the FIR to invoke the Gangsters Act 
against the appellants related to certain property and monetary 
transactions which were primarily civil in nature – Addition of 
various Sections of the IPC in the three CCs may come under 
the ambit of the offences specified in s.2(b) of the Gangsters Act 
however, mere invocation of certain Sections of the IPC cannot 
preclude the Court from lifting the veil to understand what actually 
lies beneath the material, which is sought to be made the basis 
for invoking the Act – Right to life and liberty guaranteed u/Article 
21 cannot be overlooked only because criminal cases have been 
registered against a person – Authorities do not have unfettered 
discretion to invoke the Gangsters Act – The more stringent or 
penal a provision, greater the emphasis and requirement for it 
* Author
66
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to be strictly construed – Compliance and strict adherence mean 
that only an eyewash by making allegations with a view to set up 
grounds to justify resort to the Act would not suffice – Material(s) 
must be available to gauge the probability of commission of the 
alleged offence(s) – The CCs do not fall within the net of ‘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’, as mandated 
u/s.2(b) of the Gangsters Act – Resort to the Gangsters Act by the 
State was premature and uncalled for – FIR quashed – Impugned 
judgment set aside. [Paras 23, 24, 26-28]
Case Law Cited
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [2005] 2 SCR 708 : 
(2005) 4 SCC 370; Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon [2024] 4 SCR 
29 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 483; Shraddha Gupta v. State of 
Uttar Pradesh [2022] 17 SCR 622 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514; 
Dharmendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine All 
634; Mohammad Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023] 11 SCR 
313 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951; Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim 
v. State of Assam [2024] 7 SCR 2329 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 
1695 – referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1986; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Quashing; Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Invoking the Uttar Pradesh 
Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Article 
21 of the Constitution of India; Gang; Property and monetary 
transactions; Civil in nature; Right to life and liberty; Violence; 
Intimidation; Coercion; Disturbing public order; Stringent provision; 
Penal provision, Strictly construed; Compliance; Strict adherence; 
Invocation of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1986; Unfettered discretion; Resort to the Uttar 
Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; 
FIR quashed.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
67
Jay Kishan and Ors. v.  
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
727 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLMWP No. 19541 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Anurag Dubey, Meenesh Dubey, Ms. 
Anu Sawhney, Ms. Maitri Goal, Ms. Purnima Jain, Satpal Wadhwa, 
Bhupendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Ms. Divya Bhardwaj, Advs. for the 
Appellants. 
Dinesh Kr. Goswami, Sr. Adv., Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav, 
Ms. Mani Munjal, Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Yash Giri, Anuj Shukla, 
Aditya Giri, Advs. for the Resp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.