Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Salman @ Sonu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 15156 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohd. Salman @ Sonu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nijam Ahamad
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Sri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner- Mohd. Salman @ Sonu with a prayer for quashing the impugned notice dated 08.12.2020 issued by the opposite party No.2/District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No.D-202004040000918, under Sections 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a minor boy aged about 15 years, as per the Aadhar Card and Class-V mark-sheet, a copy of which, is annexed as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 to the writ petition. He further submits that the impugned notice dated 08.12.2020 has been issued only on the basis of F.I.R. which was lodged against the petitioner bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No.35 of 2020, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and beat report dated 09.10.2020 which is highly improbable and illegal. He further submits that Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 shall be applicable only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is engaged or about to engage in commission of offence in the District or any part thereof. He further submits that Section 2(b)(i) clearly states that: "Goonda" means a person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, or Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code". He further submits that no evidence is coming forth that the petitioner is running a gang and, therefore, impugned notice dated 08.12.2020 under Sections 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is illegal and issued without application of mind.
Learned counsel for petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhim Sain Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1999 (39) ACC 321, wherein it has been held that: "if there has been reference of two or more incidents in the impugned notice, then the minimum legal requirement of Section 2(b)(i) would have been satisfied". He further submits that in a similar matter where the show cause notice which was issued under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 has been quashed and writ petition was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.11098 (M/B) of 2018. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16226 of 2015 vide order dated 30.07.2015, a copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned notice dated 08.12.2020 and submitted that it is always open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before competent authority. She further submits that petitioner is indulged in criminal activity and there is every possibility that he is running a gang, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned notice dated 08.12.2020 and also considering the gravity of offence levelled against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned notice dated 08.12.2020 as the writ petition against the said notice is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 691 and Jainendra @ Chhotu Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2007 (57) ACC 791 and also the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.869 of 2018; Pramod Katyayn vs. State of U.P. and others.
The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, it shall be open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before the competent authority.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Narendra Kumar Johari,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
Order Date :- 20.7.2021/Shubhankar
