Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Wahid @ Abdul Wahid – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12979 of 2024
Decided On : 02-09-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - Sections 2(b) and 3(1) - Writ petition challenging externment orders - The petitioner was categorized as a 'goonda' based on insufficient evidence and vague allegations, violating the principles of individual liberty and due process - The impugned orders were quashed for lack of judicial application and arbitrary nature. (Paras 10, 12, 14, 17)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that subjective satisfaction must be based on objective evidence, not merely on police reports or vague allegations. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged externment orders citing insufficient evidence and personal animosity behind criminal charges, asserting a clean record for several years.
Findings of Court:
The court found the orders arbitrary, lacking in evidence, and infringing on the petitioner's rights.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be classified as a 'goonda' based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a person cannot be labeled a 'goonda' without a habitual pattern of criminal behavior and that the authorities failed to demonstrate such a pattern in this case.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.6.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut/respondent no. 2 in Case No. 987 of 2024 (Wahid v. State of U.P.) Computerized Case No. C202411000000987, under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as well as the impugned externment order dated 10.4.2024 passed by the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Ghaziabad in Case No. 114 of 2024 under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station Wave City, District Ghaziabad in respect of the petitioner.
(b) to issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioner.
2. The prosecution story starts with the judgment dated 10.4.2024 passed by the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad and in the said matter a letter dated 29.2.2024 was sent by the Deputy Police Commissioner (Rural), Commissionerate, Ghaziabad to the Court of Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad wherein a goonda chart in respect of the petitioner alongwith a report submitted by the Station Officer, police station, Wave City, Ghaziabad dated 27.2.2024 consisted of the copies of F.I.R. and charge sheet in Case Crime no. 445 of 2023 under Sections 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Wave City, District Ghaziabad, Case Crime No. 695 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Masuri, District Ghaziabad and Case Crime No. 387 of 2016 under Sections 504, 506, 323, 452 IPC, P.S. Masuri, District Ghaziabad alongwith G.D. No. 30 dated 18.2.2024 of the beat information were appended. The Station Officer, P.S. Wave City narrated in his report that the present petitioner is a dreaded criminal who is involved in committing crime as mentioned in Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of I.P.C. and no member of the public dares to lodge any report or to tender evidence against him and it was not in the public interest to leave him free in the district.
3. A notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 14.3.2024 and responding to the said notice, an objection alongwith affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the Court wherein he denied all the charges levelled against him in the police report. He also claimed that the criminal cases lodged against him were the result of previous animosity and there is no independent public witness to support the case of prosecution in any of the aforesaid criminal matters and as a matter of fact the petitioner has been released on bail in all the cases mentioned in the said notice.
4. The prosecution before the Court of Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad came forward with a specific plea that all the cases lodged against the petitioner, which are mentioned in the notice, have been culminated into charge sheet. Apart from the cases mentioned in the notice, the petitioner is facing some other criminal cases and he is a man of criminal antecedents. In order to keep peace and tranquillity in the area it is desirable to direct him to remove himself outside the area of district Ghaziabad for a particular period.
5. The aforesaid matter was contended by the petitioner but the impugned order dated 10.4.2024 passed against him and even his appeal filed against the said order before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut failed and the appellate court after hearing both the sides and perusal of the record found that the petitioner was a dreaded criminal and was habitual to commit crime under Chapter, XV, XVI, XVII and XXII of the I.P.C. The impugned order dated 10.4.2024 whereby the petitioner was punished to remove himself from the boundaries of district Ghaziabad for a period of six months was affirm
AI
The classification of an individual as a 'goonda' requires substantial evidence of habitual criminal behavior, not merely vague allegations or police reports.
The court emphasized that administrative orders must be supported by adequate reasoning, and failure to demonstrate habitual offending renders such orders unsustainable.
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 court held that the respondent failed to consider the most relevant consideration, namely, whether the petitioner had committed the alleged offenses within the six-month period specified in the e....
The invocation of preventive powers under the Goondas Act requires substantiated allegations of habitual criminality or threat to public order; procedural compliance is imperative for lawful initiati....
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
