Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 13854 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7811/2022

Prakash S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Jat R/o

Adarsh Colony Samdari Station Ps Samdari Dist. Pali

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Maru Mr. Ripudaman Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG Mr. Pallav Sharma Mr. Deepak Sharma, SP Barmer

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

25/11/2022

The instant Misc. Petition has been preferred against the

action of the respondent No.2. Superintendent of Police, Barmer

whereby the Superintendent of Police, Barmer directed the Station

House Officer, Police Station Samdari to submit a criminal

complaint before the District Collector to initiate proceedings

under Section 2/3 of the Rajasthan Control of Gunda Act, 1975

(hereinafter for short 'the Act of 1975') to declare the petitioner as

'Gunda' under the provisions of the Act of 1975.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-7811/2022]

The crux of the petition is that the petitioner was convicted

in two cases which were registered in the year 2018 & 2019 and

after that no other case has been registered against him,

therefore, direction for institution of proceedings under the Act of

1975 is not justifiable. The Superintendent of Police, Barmer was

summoned by the trial Court to apprise the Court regarding

circumstances of this case and he appeared in pursuance thereof

and submitted that as per the provisions contained under the Act

of 1975, one of the circumstances is conviction of a person in two

or more cases under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance,

1949 (hereinafter referred as 'the Ordinance of 1949').

Sub-Clause2 (v) of Section 2 of the Act of 1975 defines

"Goonda" as a person who has been convicted under the

Ordinance of 1949 at least two times and it appears from the

record of the instant case that the petitioner has been booked and

convicted under the Ordinance of 1949 at least two times, thus

no case for interference by this Court is called for.

Coupled with the other circumstances, since the petitioner is

convicted in two cases by the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Shivana, therefore, looking to his general conduct as well, the

police administration of the District was of the opinion that the

activities of Gundas and Anti-Social elements need to be crippled

down and a resolution was passed to initiate the proceedings

against the petitioner under the Act of 1975, which is not per se

illegal.

On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and

having gone thorough the provisions of the Act of 1975, judgment

of conviction of the petitioner and police report regarding conduct

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-7811/2022]

of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent

jurisdiction for quashing the order impugned dated 03.09.2022.

Hence, there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition and

the same is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 55-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)