Uttarakhand High Court
Lakhvinder Singh @ Lucky vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1631 of 2022
Lakhvinder Singh @ Lucky ..................Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand and others ..............Respondents
Present: Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Date of Hearing and Order: 28.11.2022
Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has
passed the following order:-
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated
17.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4 - Additional
District Magistrate (Special Revenue), Udham Singh
Nagar in case no. 51/14 of 2021 (old Case No. 51/120 of
2018) "State Vs. Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakkhi" under
Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970
(hereinafter referred to as the "Goonda Act" for brevity)
as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand and the
impugned judgment and order dated 13.06.2022 passed
by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, District -
Nainital in Goonda Appeal No. 06 of 2021-22 at
Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively be quashed.
2. A proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under
the provisions of the Goonda Act on the ground that he
was involved in a number of cases. Thereafter, the order
was passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
against which, an appeal was preferred to the learned
Commissioner Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, wherein
keeping in view the nature of the allegations made
against the petitioner and pendency of criminal cases,
he was declared as a goonda and the Commissioner,
Kumaon Mandal passed an order of externment ¼rM+hikj½.
3. The definition of Goonda appears at Clause (b) of Section
2 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970,
reads as follows:-
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires -
(a) "District Magistrate" includes an Additional
District Magistrate specially empowered by the
State Government in that behalf;
(b) "Goonda" means a person who--
(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of
a gang, habitually commits or attempts to
commit, or abets the commission of an offence
punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B
or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or
Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or
Chapter XXII of the said Code; or
(ii) has been convicted for an offence
punishable under the Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or
(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for
an offence punishable under the U. P. Excise
Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or
Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the
Arms Act, 1959; or
(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is
desperate and dangerous to the community; or
(v) has been habitually passing indecent
remarks or teasing women or girls; or
(vi) is a tout,
Explanation.--'Tout' means a person who--
(a) accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or
attempts to obtain from any person for
himself or for any other person, any
gratification whatever as a motive or
reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal
means any public servant or member of
Government, Parliament or of State
Legislature, to do or forbear to do anything
or to show favour or disfavour to any person
or to render or attempt to render any service
or disservice to any person, with the Central
or State Government, Parliament or State
Legislature, any local authority, corporation,
Government Company or public servant, or
(b) procures, in consideration of any
remuneration moving from any legal
practitioner interested in any legal
business, or proposes to any legal
practitioner or to any person interested in
legal business to procure, in consideration
of any remuneration moving from either of
them, the employment of legal practitioner
in such business, or
(c) for the purposes mentioned in explanation
(a) or (b), frequents the precincts of civil,
criminal or revenue courts, revenue or other
offices, residential colonies or residences or
vicinity of the aforesaid or railway or bus
stations, landing stages, lodging places or
other places of public resort; or
(vii) is a house-grabber.
Explanation.--'House-grabber' means a person
who takes or attempts to take or aids or abets in
taking unauthorised possession or having lawfully
entered unlawfully remains in possession, of a
building including land, garden, garages or out-
houses appurtenant to a building.]"
4. It is apparent from the facts of the case, as it is not
disputed by the State that the petitioner has never been
convicted of an offence punishable under Section 153 or
153-B or Section 294 of the Penal Code or under
Chapter XV, XVII or XVII or XXII of the said code. He
has never been punished for an offence punishable
under the Prevention of the Immoral Traffic in Women
and Girls Act, 1956. He has not been punished for an
offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or
the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or under Sections 25, 27
and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959.
5. It is also not the case of the prosecution that he is a tout
so that three clauses of sub-clause (vi) would be
applicable to him. There is no allegation against him
that he has been habitually passing indecent remarks or
teasing women or girls. There is no allegation that he is
a house grabber.
6. Thus, it is apparent from the record that the only
allegation made against the Authorities is that he has
certain criminal cases against him.
7. The learned counsel for the State would submit that at
present three criminal cases are pending against the
petitioner. However, to term a person as a goonda, the
Authorities have jurisdiction under sub-clause (iv) of
Clause (b) of Section 2 of the said Act, 'when a person is
found to be generally reputed to be a person, who is
desperate and dangerous to the community. Such a fact
has to be recorded by the Authorities and reasons have
to be given, why he has come to this conclusion. In this
case, the Investigating Agency has recommended that he
has 5 to 6 cases against him, out of which, in majority
cases, he has been acquitted. The order of externment,
declaring him as a goonda, has been passed by the
Authorities. There is no reason recorded either by the
Investigating Agency in their forwarding report or the
District Magistrate in the order passed in the first
instance about his satisfaction regarding the fact that he
is generally reputed to a person, who is desperate and
dangerous to the society.
8. In that view of the matter, the writ application appears
to be meritorious one and the same is allowed.
9. The rule is made absolute. The impugned judgment and
order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4
- Additional District Magistrate (Special Revenue),
Udham Singh Nagar and the impugned judgment and
order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Commissioner
Kumaon Mandal, Nainital in Goonda Appeal No. 06 of
2021-22 at Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively are
hereby quashed.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
28.11.2022
(Grant urgent certified copy of this order, as per Rules)
A/-
