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 initiation of proceedings.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - Section 3(1) - Writ petition under Article 226 - Petition to quash police report and notice declaring the Petitioner as 'goonda' - Proceedings initiated based on mala fide complaints amidst civil disputes - The impugned notice did not disclose specific acts constituting habitual criminality or public danger - Full Bench of Allahabad High Court clarifies that powers under the Goondas Act must strictly conform to statutory requirements. (Paras 21 and 28)

(B) Judicial scrutiny and procedural safeguards - The initiation of proceedings under the Goondas Act must adhere to legal requirements, failing which actions are considered abuse of process. (Paras 27 and 28)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner challenged action under the Goondas Act taken due to complaints from Respondents engaged in property disputes with the Petitioner, without any conviction or charge sheet against him in several FIRs. (Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6).

Findings of Court:
The notice based on the Chalani Report is unsustainable as it lacks specific allegations and does not substantiate the invocation of the Goondas Act. (Paragraph 28)

Issues: The Court determined whether the FIRs warranted action under the Goondas Act and if procedural norms were followed in initiating such action.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Chalani Report lacked concrete evidence of habitual criminality or public disorder, thus rendering the consequent notice ineffective. (Paragraphs 20 and 28)

Result: Writ petition allowed; notice quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner, Swami Prakashanand, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Police report dated 01.01.2023 submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Rishikesh, to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, recommending action under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and the consequential notice dated 18.01.2023 issued by the District Magistrate under the said provision.

2. The case of the Petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, is that he is a religious and law-abiding citizen residing at Rishikesh. It is stated that the impugned proceedings under the Goondas Act have been initiated on the basis of mala fide complaints made by private Respondents Nos. 6 and 7, who are engaged in a civil property dispute with him.

3. It is asserted that O.S. No. 21 of 2021, instituted by the Petitioner seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Respondents Nos. 6 and 7, is presently pending adjudication before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District Dehradun. It is also stated that this Court, by order dated 18.10.2022, passed in WPMS No. 2585 of 2022, has restrained both sides from creating any third-party interest in the disputed property during the pendency of the said civil proceedings.

4. It is further stated that the impugned Chalani Report refers to five criminal cases registered against the Petitioner, FIR Nos. 130 of 2022, 204 of 2022, 226 of 2022, 276 of 2022, and 339 of 2022all arising out of the same property dispute and lodged by the same complainant family, namely Respondents Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The Petitioner contends that these FIRs have been filed as a counterblast to the civil suit, and that no charge sheet or conviction has resulted therefrom.

5. The record reveals that pursuant to the Chalani Report, the District Magistrate issued a notice dated 18.01.2023 under Section 3(1) of the Act calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be declared a “goonda” within the meaning of Section 2(b). The said notice, according to the Petitioner, does not disclose any specific acts or particulars constituting habitual criminality or public danger, and merely reproduces the statutory language of the Act.

6. On 15.03.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, directed that no further proceedings shall be initiated pursuant to the impugned notice, and the said interim protection has continued to date. The matter has now been placed for final adjudication before this Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Lalit Belwal, assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Belwal and Mr. Ashish Belwal, submitted that the entire proceedings under the Goondas Act are vitiated for non-compliance with in the mandatory statutory requirements. It was contended that the impugned Chalani Report dated 01.01.2023 and the notice dated 18.01.2023 are wholly unsustainable, as they fail to indicate any cogent material satisfying the definition of “goonda” under Section 2(b) of the Act.

8. It was urged that all five FIRs mentioned in the Chalani Report pertain to the same property dispute, and have been lodged by the same complainant family with identical allegations. The Petitioner has neither been convicted nor even charge-sheeted in any of those cases. The learned Counsel submitted that mere pendency of FIRs cannot confer jurisdiction upon the District Magistrate to initiate proceedings under the Act.

9. It was further contended that the impugned notice is not in conformity with Form-I appended to the Schedule of the Act, as it does not narrate the “general nature of material allegations” in a narrative form, thereby depriving the Petitioner of an opportunity to make an effective representation. The proceedings, therefore, are violative of the principles of natural justice.

10. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Goondas Act is a preventive measure meant to