Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SWAMI PRAKASHANAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY HOME DEHRADUN – Respondent
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 18.1
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....
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 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.
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.
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
