In a case involving Lal Mohd. and his son, accused of participating in a violent protest on October 10, 2022, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Initiallya booked under IPC provisions, the accused were granted bail. However, six months later, a third FIR invoked the Gangsters Act, alleging organized gang activity. The appellants argued the protest was spontaneous, not organized, and the delayed FIR was politically motivated, filed after a family member’s political nomination. The State claimed the violence disrupted public order, justifying the Act. The Court clarified that under Section 2(b), the Act applies only to habitual, organized criminal activity. A single incident without a pattern of criminal behavior cannot justify invoking such stringent laws. The FIR’s delayed timing further raised concerns about misuse. Quashing the FIR, the Court stressed that applying the Gangsters Act in isolated cases undermines its intent and amounts to abuse of power, though pending general criminal proceedings remain unaffected.