Dismissed

Haribansh Singh @ Munna Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2021CRLP/7489/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority with objections within three weeks. The court held that the proper course was to seek redress from the authority and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to file reply within three weeks alongside this order for consideration by respondent no.2.

Haribansh Singh @ Munna Singh Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7489 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Haribansh Singh @ Munna Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yusuf Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice under section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act1970 is based on two First Information Reports namely F.I.R. No. 211 of 2020, under sections 504, 506 IPC, and F.I.R. No. 305 of 2021, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau but so far as F.I.R. No. 211 of 2020 is concerned that neither relates to the petitioner nor it is under sections 504, 506 IPC. instead it was registered against one Waseem Rehman, under sections 188, 269, 270 IPC, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau for not wearing mask during pandemic period.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. on instructions states that the year of F.I.R. No. 211 has wrongly been mentioned as 2020 in the impugned notice. The correct year of the F.I.R. No. 211 is 2021, under sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau. He submits that the aforesaid mistake is a typing error.

¶8

Be that as it may, proper course for the petitioner is to submit reply to the impugned notice before the authority concerned.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to submit reply and raise such objection, as may be available to him under law, before the concerned authority.

¶10

In the event, if such an reply/objection is filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today along with a copy of this order, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed by the respondent no.2 expeditiously preferably within next four weeks after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

¶12

Order Date :- 1.10.2021

¶13

RPD

Haribansh Singh @ Munna Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haribansh Singh @ Munna Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tayyab Qureshi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajkumari Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. 3 Others

Jitendra Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Moid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Richa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others