JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Akram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for State-respondents.

2. On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners, Superintendent of Police, Bijnor is allowed to be impleaded as respondent No. 3 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 5439 of 2021 and 5521 of 2021 writ petitions. Necessary correction be carried out in the array of parties during course of the day.

3. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been accepted by the learned AGA.

4. All the above noted writ petitions involving challenge to the similar notices dated 5.10.2020 issued by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bijnor, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1970').

5. Since the facts and controversy involved in all the above writ petitions are similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions are being finally decided together, treating Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5477 of 2021 as leading writ petition and facts therein are being noted.

6. The leading writ petition was heard on 17.8.2021, 18.8.2021, 19.8.2021 and 25.8.2021. On 17.8.2021, this Court has passed the following order:

''This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the notice dated 5.10.2020 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bijnor under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice has been issued merely on the basis of Case Crime No. 130/2020 dated 5.4.2020 under Sections 330, 354(kha) and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor which arises from the matrimonial dispute between brother of the petitioner, namely Sikandar and his wife, in which the petitioner being brother was falsely implicated. He further submits that subsequently, the aforesaid husband and wife have also entered into a compromise on 29.8.2020 and resolved their dispute.

Prima-facie, the impugned notice appears to be an abuse of process of law by the respondent No. 2.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted a day's time to obtain instructions.

Put up tomorrow as a fresh case at 10 a.m.''

7. On 18.8.2021, this Court has passed the following order:

''On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor is allowed to be impleaded as respondent No. 3 during the course of the day.

Notice on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been accepted by the learned AGA.

Pursuant to the order dated 17.8.2021, learned AGA has received written instructions and states that pursuant to the impugned notice dated 5.10.2020, the petitioner appeared on 23.10.2020 and 1.3.2021, submitted reply on 19.7.2021 and the next date fixed is 20.8.2021.

As prayed, put up tomorrow, i.e., on 19.8.2021 at 10.00 a.m. for further hearing to enable the respondents to file counter-affidavit.

In the counter-affidavit, the respondents shall show-cause as to why exemplary costs be not imposed upon them, as the impugned notice under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, prima facie, appears to be abuse of the process of law by the respondents for brief reasons noted in our order dated 17.8.2021.''

8. On 25.8.2021, this Court has passed the following order:

''Heard Sri Mohammad Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

Counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 18.8.2021 and an affidavit in the form of the counter-affidavit dated 23.8.2021 of Paramachandra Srivastava, Naib Tehsilder, Dhampur, District Bijnor (who is not respondent in the present writ petition) have been filed today, which are taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that against the similar show-cause notices relating to the same FIR No. 130 of 2020, dated 5.4.2020, the other accuseds have filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5439 of 2021 (Mukarram vs. S