Key Points

• The writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.6.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and the externment order dated 10.4.2024 passed by the Additional Police Commissioner, Ghaziabad under Sections 2/3 of the Act. [1] (!)
• Additional prayer for a writ of mandamus to prevent harassment of the petitioner. (!)
• Prosecution relied on a goonda chart including three criminal cases: Case Crime No. 445 of 2023 (Sections 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC), Case Crime No. 695 of 2016 (Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 504, 506 IPC), and Case Crime No. 387 of 2016 (Sections 504, 506, 323, 452 IPC), along with beat information dated 18.2.2024. [2]
• Police report described the petitioner as a dreaded criminal involved in offences under Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the IPC, claiming public fear prevents reporting. [2]
• Notice issued under Section 3(1) of the Act on 14.3.2024; petitioner filed objections denying charges, attributing cases to personal animosity, noting lack of independent witnesses and bail in all cases. [3]
• Prosecution asserted all cases resulted in charge sheets, petitioner has criminal antecedents, and externment is necessary for public peace. [4]
• Impugned order dated 10.4.2024 directed externment for six months; appeal under Section 6 dismissed on 21.6.2024, upholding the order and labeling petitioner habitual offender under Chapters XV, XVI, XVII, and XXII of IPC. [5]
• Petitioner's counsel argued cases stem from animosity, are personal/non-heinous, with clean record for ~7 years post-2016 cases, and orders arbitrarily violate liberty. [7]
• State counsel offered no explanation for lack of additional cases over seven years, implicitly supporting petitioner's clean image. [8]
• Show cause notice dated 30.3.2024 contained vague/general allegations, rendering it invalid. [10]
• Criminal cases are personal in nature; two from 2016, next in 2023 after ~7-year gap raises doubt on "goonda" classification under Section 2(b). [11]
• A person is a "goonda" only if habitually committing offences as defined in Section 2(b), not based on isolated acts; single/two acts insufficient. [12][13]
• Full definition of "goonda" under Section 2(b) includes habitual commission/abettment of specific IPC offences, multiple convictions under certain Acts, reputation as desperate/dangerous, teasing women, tout/house-grabber activities, or involvement in specified unlawful acts. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Externment orders impact constitutional right to liberty under Article 19(d); notice invalid as authority failed to demonstrate petitioner's "goonda" status via nuisance or specific offences under Section 2(b)(i); no recorded subjective satisfaction, merely relied on police report. [14]
• Seven-year clean period undermines sudden "goonda"/tout/house-grabber labeling based on 2023 case. [14]
• State claim of petitioner's terror/reputation rejected, as proceedings cannot rely solely on SHO/police subjective views without objective evidence. [15][16]
• No factual witnesses supported prosecution in cases despite bail; mechanical orders lack judicial application of mind, impose unreasonable restrictions violating Article 19(d). [17]
• Writ petition allowed; both impugned orders quashed/set aside. [17][18]