[2026:RJ-JD:11141]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 453/2026

1. Prahlad Gurjar S/o Nathulal Gurjar, Aged About 50 Years, Talai Mohalla. District Pratapagarh, Raj.

2. Ramkanya Gurjar W/o Prahalad Gurjar, Aged About 45 Years, Talai Mohalla. District Pratapagarh, Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Collector Cum District Magistrate, District Pratapgarh, Raj.

2. The Superintendent Of Police, Pratapgarh

3. The Additional Dist. Collector, Dist. Pratapgarh, Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Moad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 25/02/2026 DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 25/02/2026 FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/03/2026 BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents for quashing of notice under Rajasthan Goondas Act dated 22.01.2026 and communications-cum-letter dated 17.01.2026 & 22.01.2026.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 18.12.2025, Respondent No. 2 addressed a communication to Petitioner No. 2, the Chairman of Nagar Parishad Pratapgarh, seeking an explanation regarding the alleged participation of Petitioner No.1, her husband, in certain public functions. In response, Petitioner No.2 submitted a detailed reply on her official letterhead justifying the circumstances and clarifying that no illegality had been committed. Thereafter, on 28.12.2025, a statement of Hon’ble Minister Jabbar Singh Khart was published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, wherein concerns were reportedly raised regarding bureaucratic overreach.

2.1. Subsequently, on 17.01.2026, Respondent No.1 issued the first impugned communication directing the registration of criminal cases against Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, on 22.01.2026, Respondent No.1 issued a second impugned communication to the concerned authority alleging dissemination of misinformation by Petitioner No.1 and recommending coercive action.

2.2. Acting upon the said communication, Respondent No.3, on the same date i.e., 22.01.2026, issued a notice against Petitioner No.1 under the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975. Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, which are alleged to be arbitrary and illegal, the petitioners have preferred the filed the present Criminal Writ Petition before this Court.

3. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order dated 06.03.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1070/2024 (Suleman & Ors.), the relevant extract of which has been reproduced hereinabove.

3. The sum and substance of the case is that a complaint came to be filed on behalf of the SHO, Police Station, Udaimandir, before the DCP Jodhpur on dated 05-11-2019 seeking initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act 1975 (herein after referred as ‘Goondas Act’). The learned DCP made observance of a single fact that the petitioner was convicted on two occasions for committing offence under the penal provisions of Gambling Ordinance. As per the facts in the order under challenge, the petitioner was convicted on 31-01-2019 and sentenced with fine and at a subsequent occasion, he was sentenced to fine. Interestingly, no other conviction or list of pending cases is reported in the order under challenge.

4. After perusing the material available on record, it is necessary to first examine the provisions of the Goondas Act. It is important to understand who can be considered or called a ‘Goonda’ under the Act. For ready reference, the definition of ‘Goonda’ as provided under Section 2(b) of the Goondas Act is reproduced below:-

“(b) "Goonda" mea