Allowed

Adil v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023CRLP/15089/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a show cause notice issued under the UP Control of Goondas Act against the petitioner found in a single criminal case. Relying on a recent precedent, the court held the notice was defective due to lack of application of mind and failure to disclose material allegations, constituting an abuse of power.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice dated 23.05.2023 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Nagar), Aligarh under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is quashed.

Adil Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186541-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15089 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Adil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sonu Kumar Tiwari,Sandeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sonu Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the impugned show cause notice dated 23.05.2023 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Nagar), Aligarh, District Aligarh in Case No. D-202318020003319 of 2023 (State Vs. Adil), under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

¶8

From the impugned notice dated 23.05.2023 it is evident that there is a single case into the credit of the petitioner.

¶9

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is bailed out in Case Crime No. 210 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh. It is further contended that relying on the said criminal case the proceedings under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act has been initiated against the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice has been issued without application of judicial mind, making entire impugned notice per se defective and cannot be acted upon anymore.

¶11

We have opportunity to peruse the alleged impugned notice dated 23.05.2023, from which it has been culled out that there is one criminal case being Case Crime No. 210 of 2022, under

¶12

Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh. This by itself reflects that on the basis of said criminal case the impugned show cause notice has been issued against the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited our one judgment passed in the case of Govardhan Vs. State of U.P. having Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12619 of 2023 decided on 10.08.2023 , in which we have recorded our anguish and displeasure on the manner in which executive authorities are pasting the show cause notice under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 on their own convenience and in most irresponsible way, that is causing calculated harm to the reputation and name of an individual and his family members. The present case is one of those cases where the executive authorities should have acted much intelligently and keeping in view the objective of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Secondly, there has to be general nature of material allegation against the petitioner. This mandatory provision is completely missing in the impugned notice. He has relied upon the paragraphs-10, 13, 14 and 15 of the said judgment, which are being quoted herein below:-

¶14

"10. The public perception regarding the individuals' image carries weight. If the individual is enjoying a bad reputation and name in the area and coupled with the fact that he has got a chequered past then executive authorities are well within their right to issue notice to that individual or to pass an externment order for that individual. Trivial and insignificant offences having one or two in number would not make the person branded as a "Goonda". This adjective "Goonda" itself carries bundle load of bad name, and the executive authorities casually and irresponsibly brand a person as a Goonda, goes without saying, that his entire future and reputation would go to dogs and cause irreparable damage to his name and reputation of his family.

¶15

13. In the impugned notice, there is a description of only one criminal case and one beat report against the petitioner while as per the definition and law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well a by this Court "one" cannot be treated to be a 'habitual offender' unless and until there is a tendency of recurrence of the offence. In the instant case there is a solitary case to the credit of the petitioner, in which he has been granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, we find that this notice is nothing, but a sheer abuse of power vested in the executive authorities of the district.

¶16

14. In addition to above, there is mandatory requirement of the law, that if the executive authority is satisfied that the proceedings under Goonda Act spells out offences under clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-Section 1 of the Act, he may issue notices to the particular "Goonda" informing him general nature of material allegations against him in clause (d) of the Act, his image among the masses, his nuisance value by which he is a potential threat to the peace and public order of the society at large.

¶17

15. But in the instant case, in the notice under challenge spells out the cases required against the petitioner which is allegedly issued on a "prescribed printed proforma" without application of mind by the executive authorities. Not only this, except enumeration of pending solitary case and a beat report, there is total lack of any judicial mind spelling out the general nature of material allegations against the petitioner, making entire impugned notice per se defective and cannot be acted upon any further."

¶18

Under these circumstances, relying upon the aforesaid judgment, we have no hesitation to quash the impugned notice.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The notice dated 23.05.2023 issued by the issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Nagar), Aligarh, District Aligarh in Case No. D- 202318020003319 of 2023 (State Vs. Adil), under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed .

¶20

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Mustaqeem.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adil v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km. Radhika and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dalchand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anoop Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others