Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Khaliq vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy, Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5499 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohd. Khaliq
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Afaq Zaki Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged notice of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 dated 05.07.2022.
On being asked the learned counsel for petitioner contended that on 27.07.2022 which was the date fixed before the District Magistrate, the petitioner appeared before him and thereafter, some date has been fixed, but, he is not aware of the said date. He is also not aware as to whether any explanation, as was called by the impugned notice, has been filed or not.
The only contention raised before us is that such notice under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1970') could not have been passed based on single criminal case. However, we are not impressed by this argument, as, on a reading of the order we find that apart from the one criminal case lodged against the petitioner, other recitals are also there regarding the general reputation etc. of the petitioner. We may in this regard refer to a Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Kareem Vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy., Home, Lucknow and Ors. reported in 2021 (115) ACC 213 wherein we have considered the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act, 1970 and it has been opined as under:-
"7. Now, coming to the definition of 'Goonda' the Court finds that 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 of the word 'or'.
8. Clause (iv) of Section 2(b) makes it very clear that a person can be categorized as Goonda if he is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. This provision has not been considered in Suresh Tiwari' case (supra), though, Section 2(b) has been quoted in the said judgment. As regards the decision in Imran alias Abdul Qudus Khan the said case also considers meaning of the words 'habitual criminal' and does not delve upon other clauses of section 2(b). The decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. as referred in the judgement in Suresh Tiwari's case (supra) deals with Section 2(b) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 and it was not a case of challenge to a notice."
We have clearly held that Section 2(b) which defines 'Goonda' has various Clauses and all of them are divided by use of the word 'or'. The word 'or' used therein is disjunctive, therefore, the plea of the petitioner's counsel that being a goonda one should be habitual of committing offence is referable only to Section 2(b) Clause (i). As regards the other clauses that is not a requirement. We may specifically refer to Clause (iv) which refers to a person who is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. Similar other clauses therein.
Having gone through the impugned notice but without recording any conclusive opinion in this regard as the petitioner has a remedy before the District Magistrate and in fact has already appeared before the District Magistrate on 27.07.2022 in pursuance to the impugned notice, suffice it to say that no interference is called at this stage, but, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to submit a written explanation before the District Magistrate in response to the impugned notice unless the same has already been submitted.
The District Magistrate is obliged to consider all the pleas raised and take a decision in this regard in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 1970. Once a final order is passed the petitioner will have a remedy of Appeal under Section 6 of the Act, 1970.
For the reasons aforesaid, there is no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage considering the facts of the case and the recitals contained in the impugned notice.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 2.8.2022
R.K.P.
