Right To Life & Liberty Under Article 21 Can’t Be Overlooked Only Because Criminal Cases Are Registered Against A Person: SC
The Apex Court allowed a Criminal Appeal against the refusal to quash an FIR registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986.
The Supreme Court held that the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be overlooked just because criminal cases are registered against a person.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal, challenging the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench by which it refused to quash an FIR registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, “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 Bench remarked that mere invocation of certain Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could not and would not preclude the Court from, in a manner of speaking, lifting the veil, to understand what actually lies beneath the material, which is sought to be made the basis for invoking the Act.
AOR Ashish Kumar Upadhyay represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Dinesh Kr. Goswami represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
An FIR was registered against the Appellants-accused by the Police, alleging that they being the members of a gang were involved in three criminal cases under Sections 395, 427, 506, 420, 406, 120B, and 504 of the IPC. The FIR further narrated that the said gang had a criminal history and with a view to impose a restriction on the activities of the said gang, the FIR was being registered after obtaining prior approval of the Gang Chart from the Commissioner of Police, Agra.
The Appellants assailed such FIR via Criminal Writ Petition before the High Court on the premise that three predicate FIRs are related to the property dispute between two families and the allegations made are civil in nature and hence, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act were liable to be quashed. The High Court dismissed their Petition and granted liberty to apply for anticipatory bail/bail, while clarifying that it had not adjudicated the contentions raised therein. Being dissatisfied, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, said, “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). Necessarily, this would have to be of a level higher than being merely presumptive.”
The Court noted that the case(s) against the person(s) qua whom the Act is to be invoked cannot be run-of-the-mill – it must be serious and that the severity required for the underlying case(s), ought not to be judicially strait-jacketed as a lot would turn on the specific peculiarities of each case.
“The situation would be very different though, if the allegations levelled in the underlying case(s) had been proved at trial - it could have been a good ground to sustain and justify action under the Act. In that scenario, we would have ordinarily refrained from any interdiction. In the present matter, for the three CCs, as trial has yet to commence/is continuing/has not been concluded, for the present, there remain only indications and open-endedness to the allegations”, it added.
The Court observed that the underlying cases do not appear to 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 under Section 2(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and quashed the FIR.
Cause Title- Jay Kishan and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 198)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates Anurag Dubey, Anu Sawhney, Maitri Goal, Meenesh Dubey, and Satpal Wadhwa.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Dinesh Kr. Goswami, AORs Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Aditya Giri, Advocates Yash Giri, Anuj Shukla, and Hemant Kalra.
