IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.
Amit Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3010 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 336, 352, 427 - U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - Section 3(1) - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Punishment for Criminal intimidation - Falsely Implicated in Impugned Notice - Petition seeks quashing of impugned show cause notice - Petitioner is a student of B.A. II year and his examination is going to start and his conduct has always been good - He has been falsely implicated in impugned notice on account of involvement in a solitary case under Section - U.P. Control of Goondas Act - Petitioner is neither gang leader nor he is associated with any gang as member and, therefore, no offence under Goondas Act is made out - He has falsely been implicated in Case Crime under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 336, 352, 427 I.P.C - It has next been contended that Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in aforesaid case - Petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail - Power conferred on the authorities and the procedure provided by the Act seriously impinge upon the fundamental rights of a citizen and it makes a serious inroad on the personal liberty.
Finding of the Court:
Notice impugned lacks assertion of facts in relation to matters set out in Clause a, b and c and sub Section 1 of Section 3 of Goondas Act - Notice is general in nature and lacking is material particulars - Notice states that petitioner habitually commits crimes or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences and is generally reported to be a person, who is desperate and dangerous to the community - Witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property.
Results: Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 01.02.2022 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gorakhpur, under Section 3/4 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a student of B.A. II year and his examination is going to start from 22.03.2022 and his conduct has always been good. He has been falsely implicated in the impugned notice on account of involvement in a solitary case under Section 3/4 U.P. Control of Goondas Act. The petitioner is neither the gang leader nor he is associated with any gang as member and, therefore, no offence under the Goondas Act is made out. He has falsely been implicated in Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 336, 352, 427 I.P.C. It has next been contended that Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in the aforesaid case. The petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. Counsel for the petitioner next argued that the respondents with mala-fide intention initiated proceedings and issued notice dated 01.02.2022 under Section 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 against the petitioner, which is faulty and without following the mandatory provisions provided under Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been further argued that notice should contain essential assertion of facts in relation to matter set out in clause a, b and c sub Section 1 of Section 3 of Goondas Act. The notice dated 01.02.2022, challenged herein, does not refer to any evidence or facts.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon full Bench decision (five Judges) Bhim Sain Tyagi vs. State of U.P. 1999 (39) All. Criminal Cases 321 and Ramji Pandey vs. State of U.P. and Another, 1981 Criminal Law Journal 1083 and two other judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and submitted that present petition has been filed against the show cause notice and petitioner has remedy to reply of the show cause notice before the authority. The impugned notice issued against the petitioner is just and proper and according to provisions laid down in Section 3 of Goondas Act. It is further submitted that it is well settled proposition of law that on solitary case, notice can be issued.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the aforesaid judgments.
8. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to notice is that it does not contain the essential assertions which are required by Section 3(1) clauses a, b and c of Goondas Act. The notice issued under Section 3/4 of the petitioner does not contain the mandatory ingredients provided under Section 3(1) of Goondas Act. Notice issued to the petitioner is quoted below:
la[;k% 249@is'kdkj&22
fnukad 01-02-2022
pwafd esjs lkeus j[kh x;h lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij eq>s ;g Árhr gksrk gS fd vfer 'kekZ iq= /kesZUæ 'kekZ fuoklh feJjkSyh] Fkkuk xxgk] ftyk xksj[kiqj ,d xq.Mk gS vFkkZr o Lo;a Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds v/;k; 16] 17] 22 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k djrk gSA lekt ds fy;s nq%lkgfld ,oa [krjukd O;fDr gksus dh bldh lkekU; [;kfr gSA og HkkŒnŒlaŒ ds v/;k; 16] 17] 22 esa of.kZr vijk/kksa dks djus dk vijk/kh gSA bldh xfrfof/k;ka O;fDr;ksa dks {kfr igaqpkus okyh gSa blds Hk; ds dkj.k turk dks dksbZ Hkh O;fDr blds fo:} iqfyl dks lwpuk nsus xokgh nsus dks rS;kj ugha gksrk gSa ,oa blds fo:} lkjoku vkjksi layXu gS%&
1- vfHk;qDr ds fo:} eqŒvŒ la[;k 161@2021] /kkjk 147] 148] 452] 323] 504] 506] 336] 352] 427 HkkŒnŒfoŒ vf/kfu;e ds fo:} iathd`r gqvk] ftlds foospukijkUr iathd`r gqvk] vkjksi i= fnukad 31-07-2021 dks U;k;ky; Ásf"kr fd;k x;k] tks fopkjk/khu U;k;ky; gSA
2- ohV lwpuk fnukad 11-12-2021 Fkkuk xxgk] jiV la[;k 53
vr% vfHk;
Power conferred on the authorities and the procedure provided by the Act seriously impinge upon the fundamental rights of a citizen and it makes a serious inroad on the personal liberty.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person cannot be labeled a 'goonda' based on one or two acts, and the notice issued under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act must contain the g....
Exhaustion of alternative remedies before approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Goonda means a person who is covered by (i) of Section 2(b) or Clause (ii) or Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) or Clause (v) of the said Section. All the clauses are disjunctive as is evident from the use....
The importance of exhausting remedies provided by the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court established that a single incident does not suffice to classify an individual as a 'Goonda' under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, necessitating evidence of habitual offending.
A show cause notice failing to indicate the general nature of material allegations may be challenged and quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with liberty to the respondents to issu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.