Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2024CRLP/3577/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court lists writ petition challenging externment orders under U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970. Petitioner argues minor compromised offenses do not justifies goonda declaration. Court stays orders pending hearing but sets conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders stayed pending final hearing subject to condition that petitioner does not indulge in criminal activity and follows law.

Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3577 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Shukla,Suresh Chandra Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶10

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the opp. party no.2 in case no.1875 /2024 Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi Vs. State of U.P. through commissioner of police Lucknow computerised case no. C202410000001875 under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 and impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the opp. party no.3 in case no. 09/02/2024 under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this petition in the interest of justice.

¶11

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. parties concerned not to harass and torture the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the opp. party no.2 in case no. 1875/2024 Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi Vs. State of U.P. through commissioner of police Lucknow computerised case no. C202410000001875 under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 and impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the opp. party no.3 in case no. 09/02/2024 under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970, in the interest of justice."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have committed manifest illegality in appreciating the fact that even if some criminal cases have been alleged

¶13

against the petitioner, but lodging of the cases may itself not be sufficient to declare a person goonda as defined under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970.

¶14

It is vehemently submitted that in some of the cases on the basis of which the externment order has been passed against the petitioner have ended on the basis of compromise and this fact has not been considered by both the courts below. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to keep peace and observe the law and his externment from the place of his residence would result in extreme financial hardship to him as he is running a business of catering and had taken advance money from various persons and thus the operation of impugned orders be stayed so as the petitioner may continue with his livelihood.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the petitioner is having criminal history of six criminal cases and both the courts below have not committed any illegality or to say any irregularity in passing and confirming the externment order.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that while invoking the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970, the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow has taken into cognizance six criminal cases lodged against petitioner apart from a beat information. Perusal of these cases would show that these cases are pertaining to minor penal offences and it has been claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in few of these cases, compromise has taken place between the parties.

¶17

In nutshell, crux of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is to the tune that criminal cases, which have been made the basis in invocation of the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 are pertaining to minor offences and they are private in nature and therefore, there was no chance for disturbance of any public tranquility or peace and therefore, neither the petitioner should have been declared Goonda nor any externment order should have been passed.

¶18

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as some documents, which have been brought on record by the petitioner, which, prima facie, shows that at least three of the cases on the basis of which provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 has been invoked against the petitioner, have been compromised by the informant/victim of the cases, the matter requires consideration.

¶19

10. Let this case be listed on 18.06.2024, by which date, the

¶20

State may file counter affidavit.

¶21

It is provided that till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 in Case No.1875 /2024 (Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi Vs. State of U.P. through commissioner of police Lucknow) Computerised Case No. C202410000001875, under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 and impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the opposite party no.3 in Case No. 09/02/2024 under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970, shall remain stayed subject to condition that the petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity and shall follow the law and social order.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.5.2024 Anupam S/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahabuddin Alias Pappu Ghosi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Highway Authority of India Thru Project Director Piu Lucknow vs Dinesh Chandra and Anr.

National Highway Authority of India, Thru. Its Project Director vs Smt. Kamla Devi and 2 Others

National Highway Authority of India Thru Project Director Piu Lucknow vs Smt. Janak Dulari and Anr.

Hari Nath Tewari and Another vs Sri Nath Singh Kushwaha, Finance Controller, Lko. and Others

Vishwanath and Others vs Sri Deepak Kumar Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. U.P. and Another

Gaya Prasad Yadav (Deceased) Thru. (Ram Sumer and Another) and Others Vs Ram Bux (Deceased) Thru. (Ishvar Deen and 2 Others)