Allowed

Shakir v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2023CRLP/7875/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a notice dated 26.4.2023 issued under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as it lacked material allegations required under Section 3(1). While allowing the writ petition, the Court permitted respondents to issue a fresh valid notice.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 16.4.2023 set-aside; respondents directed to issue fresh notice in accordance with law.

Shakir Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114024-DB

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7875 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Shakir Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed against the notice dated 26.4.2023 under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. It has been stated that nothing more than the mention of crime number and sections have been given in the notice. No material allegation has been made on the basis of which the case could have proceeded or the petitioner could have replied. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that simply mentioning of only case crime number does not satisfy the test of a valid notice under section 3(1) of the aforementioned Act. A general nature of material allegation has only been made. He has submitted that a notice is the foundation of proceedings and if the notice does not contain material allegations, no reply can be given. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6103 of 2023 (Azhar vs. State of U.P. & Anr., decided on 20.4.2023) .

¶7

Learned AGA opposed the writ petition and submitted that such defects in the notice does not handicap the petitioner in giving his reply. He further submits that it is evident from the notice itself that the petitioner would encourage people around him to commit anti-social activities. He has further submitted that the notice is sufficient for the petitioner to give a reply.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 20.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6103 of 2023.

¶9

Under such circumstances, the notice dated 16.4.2023 is set-aside. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.

¶10

With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 GS

¶12

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)

¶13

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakir v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shanidev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Soniya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Afjal Ansari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bantu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others