Disposed

Mohd Furkan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023CRLP/14183/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Outside chamber, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging externment and appeal orders under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. Finding no mala fides, the Court declined to interfere but directed the petitioner to file a representation with the District Magistrate and execute a bond for good behavior.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; directed to file representation with District Magistrate and execute good behavior bond.

Mohd Furkan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159953 Judgment reserved.

¶2

In Chamber

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14183 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohd Furkan

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. and have gone through the material on record.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging the orders dated 22.7.2021 passed by the Additional District Magistrate Pilibhit in Case No. 00939 of 2019 (State versus Furkan) under sections ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act whereby the petitioner was directed to be externed for six months from entering in District Pilibhit and also the order dated 5.8.2022 passed by the Commissioner Bareilly Division Bareilly in appeal under section 6 of the U.P.Control of Goondas Act.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in two cases vide Case Crime No. 478 of 2018 under sections 147/148/149/307/323/336/504 IPC Police Station Kowali District Pilibhit and Case Crime No. 479 of 2018 under

¶12

sections 147/148/149/307/336 IPC read with section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The petitioner has been released on bail by the court below in both the cases.

¶13

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 13.5.2019 showing that the petitioner is a goonda and is involved to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons of the society as well as the property of the public. The petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice issued under section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act but the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial ) Pilibhit without considering the provisions of law passed the order dated 22.7.2021 for his externment for six months. The petitioner being dissatisfied by the order dated 22.7.2021 filed the appeal before the Commissioner.

¶14

The period of externment lost its utility on 22.1.2022 thus the appeal became redundant but the learned Commissioner rejected the appeal vide order dated 5/9/2022 holding that the trial of aforesaid both cases are pending consideration before the competent court and the petitioner has not been exonerated of the charges hence no opinion can be expressed on its merits thus the orders passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate and learned Commissioner are erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law

¶15

Per contra learned AGA contended that show cause notice was issued in public interest. The petitioner is involved in committing the act prejudicial to the public order

¶16

and in a curse to the society. The orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate and the Commissioner do not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity and vulnerability.

¶17

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases which are dangerous and deleterious to the society. His activities have posed threats to the life and property of the general people. He has earned bad reputation. The petitioner has failed to make out a case that in issuing the show cause notice , authority concerned was actuated with mala fides.

¶18

In the light of above, this Court does not see any cogent or justifiable ground to interfere with the orders impugned however leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse of remedy before the District Magistrate Pilibhit by moving a representation within a month from the date of order showing his behavior or conduct and the District Magistrate shall entertain the representation and will pass reasoned order as per law. The petitioner shall also execute a bond that he will maintain good behaviour and peace in future. It is clarified that in the meantime no coercive measures shall be enforced against him,

¶19

With these observations, this petition is finally disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 08.08.2023/Israr

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Furkan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Furkan 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

Smt. Ragini Richariya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hans Raj Adiwasi Pno. 960650749 and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Himanshu Yadav Vs University of Lucknow Thru. Registrar Distt. Lucknow and Another

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

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

Nisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others