Allahabad High Court
Satya Prakash Alias Pintu And ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Gajendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20008 of 2022
Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Alias Pintu And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Challenge in the writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 17.10.2022 issued by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar against the petitioners under Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are persons of clean antecedents and are not covered by the definition of a Gunda under Section 2 of the Act. The proceedings against them are politically motivated. Moreover, the notice that has been issued does not set out the "general nature of the material allegations against the petitioners'. The notice merely records the cases registered against the petitioners being:-
i. Case Crime No.200 of 2022, under Sections 147, 341, 504, 506 I.P.C., wherein chare sheet has been filed on 07.06.2022.
ii. Case Crime No.193 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 352, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., wherein chare sheet has been filed on 06.06.2022.
iii. Beat No.73 dated 21.09.2022.
iv. Beat No.62 dated 22.09.2022.
On the strength of the above, it is reiterated that no material allegations of general nature are to be found in the notice and, therefore, the same is bad in law. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of this Court dated 01.04.2023 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1051 of 2023, Ashok @ Ashok Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Another, which holds as follows:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to two Full Bench decisions in Ramji Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1981 Cri LJ 1083 and Bhim Sen Tyagi v. State of U.P. through D.M. Mahamaya Nagar, 1999 (2) JIG 192 (All) (FB).
In Ramji Pandey's case (supra), it has specifically been observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment that although the expression "material allegations" has not been defined by that Act, according to the dictionary meanings, the word "material" means "important and essential", "of significance". The word "allegation" means statement or assertion of facts. Thus, the notice under Section 3(1) should contain the essential assertions of facts in relation to the matters set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. It needs not refer to any evidence or other particulars or details. The names of witnesses, and persons who may have made the complaint against the person against whom action is proposed to be taken or the time, date and place of the offence committed by the person needs not be mentioned in the notice. There is a distinction between the "general nature of material allegations" and "particulars of allegations". In accordance with the former expression, the notice needs not give any details of the allegations, instead the requirement of law would be satisfied if the notice contains a general statement of facts which need not contain any details or particulars. In Ram Pandey's case, where there were allegations that, (a) the petitioner was a goonda, (b) his movements were causing alarm, danger and harm to the lives and properties of the persons within the circle of P.S.-Sikandarpur and there was reasonable ground for believing that he was engaged in the commission and abetment of offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, and (c) the witnesses were not willing to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety and danger to their persons and personal property. Regarding the aforesaid sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the material allegations of general nature were that there were various cases pending against the petitioner and the crime numbers and sections of those cases had been given in the notice and it was mentioned therein whether the petitioner had been convicted or acquitted in the cases or they were pending. In spite of mention of the crime numbers and sections and status of those cases, the notice in Ramji Pandey's case (supra) was held not to contain the general nature of material allegations and it was struck down.
In the present case also, nothing more than mention of the crime numbers and sections is all that we find, instead of the general nature of material allegations. A list of case crimes/first information reports/beat report registered against the petitioner does not satisfy the test of a valid notice under Section 3(1) carrying the "general nature of material allegations". Truly, the notice, on the foundation of which the order impugned has been made, is strictly in the teeth of the law laid down consistently by this Court; particularly, the Full Bench decision in Ramji Pandey (supra) and reiterated in Bhim Sain Tyagi (supra). A notice under Section 3(1) of the kind that is the foundation of proceedings here has been held in Bhim Sain Tyagi (supra) and in earlier decisions also, to violate the minimum guarantee of the opportunity that the Statute envisages for a person proceeded with/against under the Act of 1970. Thus, in this case, the impugned order, founded as it is, on a notice under Section 3 of the Act, stands vitiated by defects that go to the root of the matter."
In view of the reasoning given in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1051 of 2023, in its judgment dated 01.04.2023, which applies squarely to the case at hand, this writ petition is allowed.
The impugned notice dated 17.10.2022 issued by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, is hereby quashed. However, the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar shall be at liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law, in case the situation so demands.
Order Date :- 27.03.2023
Mayank / RKM
