Allahabad High Court
Tarun vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 December, 2023
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241648-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19617 of 2023
Petitioner :- Tarun
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Dubey,Santosh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 29.11.2023 issued by the respondent no.2 in Case No.592 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (State vs. Tarun), Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is only one case shown against the petitioner in which he has been bailed out by the court below on 30.9.2022. Contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that on that basis of only one case the Additional Police Commissioner, Ghaziabad has issued impugned notice u/s 3(1) of Goonda Act against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Govardhan Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12619 of 2023 decided on 10.08.2023 in which while quashing the notice, this Court has deprecated this practice of initiating proceeding of Goonda Act only on the basis of singular case. Relevant paragraph no.13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow :-
"13. In the impugned notice, there is a description of only one criminal case and one beat report against the petitioner while as per the definition and law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well a by this Court "one" cannot be treated to be a 'habitual offender' unless and until there is a tendency of recurrence of the offence. In the instant case there is a solitary case to the credit of the petitioner, in which he has been granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, we find that this notice is nothing, but a sheer abuse of power vested in the executive authorities of the district.
14. In addition to above, there is mandatory requirement of the law, that if the executive authority is satisfied that the proceedings under Goonda Act spells out offences under clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-Section 1 of the Act, he may issue notices to the particular "Goonda" informing him general nature of material allegations against him in clause (d) of the Act, his image among the masses, his nuisance value by which he is a potential threat to the peace and public order of the society at large.
15. But in the instant case, in the notice under challenge spells out the cases required against the petitioner which is allegedly issued on a "prescribed printed proforma" without application of mind by the 7 executive authorities. Not only this, except enumeration of pending solitary case and a beat report, there is total lack of any judicial mind spelling out the general nature of material allegations against the petitioner, making entire impugned notice per se defective and cannot be acted upon any further.
16. We record our strong displeasure in such type of routine pasting of such provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 in a most capricious and casual way.
17. At this juncture, learned A.G.A. stood up and informed the Court that in addition to the cases mentioned in the show cause notice, the petitioner is also involved in two-three more cases which do not find place in the show cause notice. This submissions advanced by the learned A.G.A. itself is amusing. This clearly indicates that one hand does not know what another hand is doing. All of a sudden learned A.G.A. woke up and revealed that in addition to two cases mentioned in impugned notices, the petitioner has got two more cases. The Court cannot take the judicial notice of those additional cases; we cannot permit this hide and seek practice with the proposed "Goonda" i.e. the petitioner.
18. Present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we are quashing the show cause notice dated 15.6.2023, issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Aligarh, in Case No. 3400 of 2023, State Vs. Govardhan), under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh."
Learned A.G.A. has also failed to justify the aforesaid notice.
Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the guidelines mentioned in the case of Govardhan Vs. State of U.P., the present writ petition stands ALLOWED. Impugned notice dated 29.11.2023 issued by the respondent no.2 is hereby QUASHED.
Order Date :- 20.12.2023
M. Kumar
