Disposed

Ravi Rai v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2022CRLP/3705/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court reviewed an externment order under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act against a petitioner who was subsequently acquitted in all pending criminal cases. Despite finding no illegality in the original order's grounds, the court modified the execution to require weekly police appearance for two months due to the prolonged stay and subsequent acquittal, directing the petitioner to app

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Station House Officer of the nearest Police Station on every Monday for a period of two months.

Ravi Rai Vs State of U.P. and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Judgement Reserved on 6.9.2022.

¶2

Delivered on 17.9.2022

¶3

Court No. - 84

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3705 of 2009

¶5

Petitioner :- Ravi Rai

¶6

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

Heard Shri. Amit Daga, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri.Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A.

¶8

The facts of the case which appears from the material on record as well as submission of rival parties are that the petitioner was involved in Case Crime No.472/2004, under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. and was facing trial at the relevant time. Petitioner along with other co-accused persons was also facing trial under the Gangsters Act as well as another case was registered against him being Case Crime No.706/2004 under Sections 387 and 506 I.P.C. and lastly there was a beat report dated 17.3.2005 against the petitioner.

¶9

Taking note of the above cases, a notice dated 18.6.2005 was issued by the District Magistrate, Jhansi under Section 3 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 22.10.2005. Matter remained pending before the concerned authority and by impugned order dated 5.9.2008 an externment order under the said act was passed against the petitioner which is impugned herein.

¶10

¶11

Amit Daga, learned counsel for petitioner submits that before the impugned order was passed, petitioner was acquitted in one criminal case arising ot of Case Crime No.706 of 2004 under Sections 387 and 506 I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 23.6.2006, therefore, Act of petitioner would not have fallen under ‘Habitual’. Learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that during pendency of this petition, petitioner has been granted acquittal in all the other cases referred above and he placed reliance upon judgements of this Court in Baldeo Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1978 (15) ACC 345, Ashutosh Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2003 (47) ACC 881, Rajan Mittal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2008 (62) ACC 622 and in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10011 of 2017, Shahanshah Vs. State of U.P. & Ors , decided on 16.3.2022 that in case the petitioner is not a habitual offender as well as in all the criminal case he has been acquitted, activity of petitioner does not fall under the Goonda Act, impugned order may be set-aside.

¶12

Aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned A.G.A. who submitted that at the time when impugned order was passed, petitioner was facing trial in all the cases and except in one case where he was granted acquittal vide judgment and order dated 23.6.2006, it was not brought on record by the petitioner before the authority concerned and the act of petitioner definitely falls under the provisions of Goonda Act, therefore, it cannot be stated that the impugned order was bad in law.

¶13

In the present case, facts are not in dispute that when the impugned order was passed, applicant was facing trial in two criminal cases arising out of serious offence which includes murder and under Gangsters Act.

¶14

It is true that in one of the case arising out of Section 387 and 506 I.P.C. he was acquitted before the impugned order was passed, which was not brought on record, therefore, the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was bad in law is not correct.

¶15

Judgements relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful as the petitioner was facing trial in three cases and there was one beat report also.

¶16

In the present case, impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2009 and the State has not come up with any report till today regarding involvement of petitioner in any subsequent offence after the impugned order was passed. There is no complaint against the petitioner for the last more than 16 years. As held above, there was no illegality in the impugned order. However, considering the subsequent conduct of the petitioner and that there was a stay of the impugned order which continued for last 16 years as well as in all the criminal cases, petitioner was subsequently acquitted, therefore, at this stage to implement the order of externment of six months would be against the interest of justice, therefore, without interfering with the grounds of the impugned order, final direction is interfered to the extent that the petitioner shall put his appearance before the Station House Officer of the nearest Police Station on the first day of each week i.e. Monday for a period of two months from today.

¶17

Registrar Compliance is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned District Magistrate.

¶18

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date:17.9.2022

¶20

¶21

Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.09.17 12:24:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Rai v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Rai v. State of U.P. and 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

Yogesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lav Kush @ Deepu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Mila and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another