Shiv Prasad Gupta vs State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 1648

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Piyush Agrawal, JJ.
Shiv Prasad Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5430 of 2021
Decided On : 15-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R.V. Chaudhary, Prakash Chandra Srivastava.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506, 120-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections ¾ - Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 – Section 2(b), 3(1) – Offence of Criminal Conspiracy – Criminal case - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace - Facts of present case are that impugned show-cause notice, under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 has been issued by Additional District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to petitioner, mainly, on ground that a Case Crime, under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is registered against petitioner - Held, Aforesaid criminal case registered against the petitioner indicates some matrimonial disputes between petitioner and his wife - Section 2(b) of Act, 1970 defines word ''Goondas'' - None of ingredients of Section 2(b) of Act, 1970 is present in impugned notice - Thus, impugned notice is without jurisdiction - Perusal of aforequoted personal affidavits of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 leaves no manner of doubt that impugned notices were issued by respondent No. 5 on initiative of respondent No. 3, was without jurisdiction and wholly uncalled for - Court do not find any good reason to proceed further with matter except direction to respondent No. 1 and Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, both to ensure that directions given by State Government in order (relevant portion quoted above) shall be implemented strictly - Writ petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri R.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the impugned show-cause notice dated 23.2.2021, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act, 1970') has been issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to the petitioner, mainly, on the ground that a Case Crime No. 52/2020, under Sections 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is registered against the petitioner.

3. In our order dated 3.9.2021, we observed/directed as under:

''We are constrained to observe that now, the authorities have started issuing notices under the Act, 1970 in matters relating to matrimonial dispute, which, prima-facie, appear to be a mischievous act on the part of the authorities.

A similar Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5477 of 2021 was entertained by this Court and when the authorities were required to show-cause, then they withdrew the notices.

In view of the aforesaid, we direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5 to file their personal affidavits narrating the reasons for initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1970 in matters where the First Information Report arising out of matrimonial dispute has been lodged. The respondent No. 1 shall also file, alongwith the personal affidavit, the steps taken by him to rule out the repetition of such misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 by the District Magistrates/Additional District Magistrates/Police in the State of Uttar Pradesh.''

4. Today, personal affidavit of respondent No. 1, dated 10.9.2021, personal affidavit of respondent No. 2 dated 8.9.2021 and a personal affidavit of respondent No. 5 dated 8.9.2021 have been filed, which all are taken on record.

5. In paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of his affidavit, the respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, has stated as under:

''3. That this Hon'ble Court had been pleased to direct, vide order dated 3.9.2021, the respondent No. 1 to file his personal affidavit narrating the reasons for initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1970 in matters where the First Information Report arsing out of matrimonial dispute has been lodged. The Hon'ble Court has further directed the respondent No. 1 to apprise the Hon'ble Court regarding steps taken by him to rule out the repetition of such misuse of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act by the District Magistrates/Additional District Magistrates/Police in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In pursuance of the said order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the deponent/respondent No. 1 is filing his personal affidavit.

4. That the deponent tenders his unfettered and unconditional apologies to this Hon'ble Court for the inconvenience caused, though the same was inadvertent.

5. That it is humbly submitted that on 7.9.2021, the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra has submitted a report before the deponent disclosing therein that the Station House Officer concerned, who has submitted a report before the higher authorities to initiate proceeding against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, has been suspended by the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra on 7.9.2021. A Copy of the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra before the deponent alongwith suspension order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra dated 7.9.2021 are being enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit.

6. That the then Additional District Magistrate, Sonbhadra had issued impugned show-cause notice dated 8.3.2021 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, which has been withdrawn by the Additional District Magistrate, Sonbhadra vide order dated 7.9.2021, as issuance of show-cause notices in such type of cases was not justified.

7. That in order to prevent the misuse of Utta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document