Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, JJ.
Govardhan – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 12619 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B, 452 – Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 – Section 2, 2(b), 3 – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Assault – House-trespass after preparation for hurt – Held, Hence forth it is expected from authorities that they would necessarily spell out 'general nature of particular allegations against proposes Goonda', his personal image among masses his social family background and then only pass a well reasoned order not on a prescribed proforma while issuing a show cause notice and thereafter a pass a well reasoned order of externment, (if at all required and needed) by said executive authorities concerned – All District Magistrates and executive authorities working under him are directed to take appropriate action hence forth and proceed against individual where they have got a strong reason to believe that individual is rogue to society and his externment is a desirable – Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
2. Present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Govardhan seeking following main prayer:
3. Normally, we do not entertain such type of petitions, where only show cause notice is issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Aligarh (the Executive Authority of the District), in Case No. 3400 of 2023, State Vs. Govardhan), under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh.
4. In the instant case, the notice under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 dated 15.6.2023 has been issued on the basis of two cases, (i) Case Crime No. 69 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B, 452 IPC, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh and (ii) Rapat No. 20, dated 3.5.2023. On the basis of these "so called two cases" the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Aligarh has issued a notice under aforesaid section of the Act, 1970 against the petitioner for the purposes of bringing an additional offence within the four corners of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. For this objective the person must be a “Goonda” and this expression of “Goonda” has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goonda Act, 1970.
5. The peculiar feature of this enactment that the person who is branded as “Goonda” should be ousted from the municipal limits of the city as a preventive measure by the executive authorities of the district by passing externment order. That the person either himself or as a member or leader of a gang, who is habitually commits the offences mentioned in the Section 2(b) of the Act or he has got the tendency to commit the offence time and again. If a person is having a solitary case to his credit, he cannot be branded that he has a habitual Goonda pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goonda Act, 1970 are applicable in the entire State of U.P. From the plain reading of the enactment, it could be said with utmost certainty that this enactment has been promulgated to save the citizens from habitual “Goonda”. The expression of Goonda has been defined in Section 2(b) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goonda Act, 1970 which is as under:
(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, or Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or
(ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or
(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or
(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community or
(v) has been habitually passing incident remarks or teasing women or girls; or
(vi) is a tout.
7. Its punishment is provided in Section 3 of the aforementioned enactment that when it appears to the District Magistrate that any person is a “Goonda” or his movements or acts in the district or any part thereof may cause or are calculated to alarm, danger or harm to the persons or property of the district. The District Magistrate feels and have a sufficient materi
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.
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 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.
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 importance of exhausting remedies provided by the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
