Suresh Pathak vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9479 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9479 ALL
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Suresh Pathak vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 August, 2022

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Rajendra Kumar-Iv




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10265 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Suresh Pathak
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Garg
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

Notice issued under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, dated 24.6.2022, is challenged on the ground that there is a single case against the petitioner under Section 384 IPC in which he has been falsely implicated apart from a beet report. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shital Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (2) JIC 315, to submit that the notice itself is bad in law. Para 3 of the Division Bench judgment in Shital Singh (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:-

"3. Admittedly, the impugned notice under Section 3 (1) of the Act has been served upon the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the notice, in question, is bad in law on account of the fact that the material details and the substance of the offences have not been specified in the notice. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Full Bench decisions of this Court in Ramji v. State of U. P-1982 Criminal Ruling I, Bhim Singh Tyagi v. Stale of U. P. & Ors. , 1999 U. P. Criminal Ruling 417; and a Division Bench decision in Nafis and others v. Slate of U. P. & Ors. , 1999 U. P. Criminal Ruling-806."

In the facts of the case we find that apart from the reference to the case itself, the authorities have mentioned material particulars in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. On facts, therefore, we find the case to be distinguishable and not covered by the law laid down in Shital Singh (supra). Prayer made to quash the notice is, therefore, declined.

Since the petitioner has already submitted a reply to the notice, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the authorities concerned to examine the petitioner's defence on merits and to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 5.8.2022

Anil