Allowed

Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Quraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2018CRLP/26878/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of impugned orders under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. Relying on prior precedent, the Court held that initiating proceedings under the Act based on a single case is legally impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders dated 4.7.2017 and 26.10.2017 were quashed in view of the law laid down in Rishav Raghav case.

Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Quraishi and Another Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26878 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Quraishi & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Yusuf Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 passed by Commissioner, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur in Appeal No.20170900786 (Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Kuraishi vs. State) and order dated 4.7.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Shamli in Criminal Case No. D201709720254 (State vs. Sonu) under Section 06 of U.P. Gunda Act, PS- Shamli, District Shamli and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by learned Commissioner Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur in Appeal No.11 of 2017 (Maqsood vs. State) and order dated 19.7.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Shamli in Case No.2017972055 under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act.

¶7

Relying on the judgment of this Court in Rishav Raghav (Minor) vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015 LawSuit(All) 2616 it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the single Case Crime No.506 of 2016, under Sections 147, 186, 332, 427, 504, 506 and Section 31(A) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1934, applicants have been directed to remove themselves outside district Shamli for a period of six months.

¶8

Learned AGA for the State has admitted that on the single case the proceedings cannot be initiated against the applicant in Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act.

¶9

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the District Magistrate, Shamli has passed an order against appellant no.1- Sonu and appellant no.2- Maqsood on 4.7.2017 and 26.10.2017 respectively. Six months have already been expired.

¶10

In view of the law laid down by this Court in aforesaid case, petition is allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 15.3.2018 Deepika

Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Quraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Tafjjul Kalim Quraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Kumar Seth Vs State of U.P.