1

Court No. - 89

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 92 of 2022

Petitioner :- Anand

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Rai

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the

State.

2.

This Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

has been filed seeking following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for

quashing the impugned order dated 24.09.2021, passed by the District

Magistrate, Hapur in Case No. 464 of 2021 (State vs. Anand)

Computer Case No. D202111730000464, under Section 3/4 of U.P.

Control of Goondas Act, 1970, P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur as well as

impugned order dated 15.12.2021, passed by the Commissioner

Meerut Division, Meerut in Case No. 1438 of 2021 Computer Case

No. C202111000001438 (Anand vs. State)

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

commanding and directing the respondents not to give effect of

impugned order dated 24.09.2021, passed by the District Magistrate,

Hapur in Case No. 464 of 2021 (State vs. Anand) Computer Case No.

D202111730000464, under Section 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas

Act, 1970, P.S. Hafizpur, District Hapur as well as impugned order

dated 15.12.2021, passed by Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut in

Case No. 1438 of 2021, Computer Case No. C202111000001438

(Anand vs. State)

iii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

iv. Award the cost of petition to the petitioner.

3.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

impugned orders are against facts and law and the same are not sustainable.

Learned counsel has referred the show cause notice issued to the petitioner

as well as reply of the petitioner and submitted that only one criminal case

2

was shown against the petitioner and that proceedings under U.P. Control Of

Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred as Goonda Act) cannot be initiated

only on the basis of one case. Learned counsel submitted that in the

impugned order, passed by the District Magistrate, Hapur as well as in the

impugned order, passed by the Commissioner, Meerut in appeal, it has been

mentioned that petitioner is a habitual offender whereas only one case was

shown against the petitioner and thus, petitioner cannot be termed as a

habitual offender. Learned counsel has cited case of Ranjeet Singh Vs State

of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12634 of 2016),

decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order 31.05.2016 and

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.

347 of 2021), decided by order dated 03.02.2021.

4.

Learned A.G.A has opposed the petition and argued that both the

impugned orders are in accordance with facts and law and there is no

illegality or perversity in the same. Learned A.G.A. also submitted that

besides the case mentioned in the impugned order, there is one more case

against the petitioner under Section 452, 307 and 506 IPC, P.S. Hafizpur,

District Hapur.

5.

Perusal of record shows that the proceedings under section 2/3 of U.P.

Goonda Act were initiated against the petitioner for his externment on the

basis of registration of case crime No. 261/2019, under section

307/302/323/504/506/34 IPC, PS Hafizpur, Hapur as well two beat

information reports. By order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the District

Magistrate, Hapur, the petitioner was directed to be extern from the limit /

area of District Hapur for a period of six months. The petitioner has

preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, but

the same came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 15.12.2021. The

question arises whether the petitioner falls within the ambit