Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6122 of 2021 Petitioner :- Mukim Nafees Kuraishy Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri M.K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of order/notice dated 6.7.2021 issued by Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Bijnor in Case No. 20211316000170/285 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, P.S. Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice does not disclose the name of police station and District. He further submits that even the notice is not issued in the proper format. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Ramji Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, 1981 CRI.L.J. 1083.
Learned A.G.A. submits that as per the settled proposition of law, notice can only be called bad in the eyes of law, if it does not disclose the general nature of material allegations. He further submits that the petitioner has failed to give the reply of the notice before the authority concerned. He has relied upon the judgements of this Court in the cases of Bhim Sain Tyagi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999 All LJ 1845 (FB), Jintendra alias Jeetu vs. District Magistrate and another, 2001 CRI L.J. 2865, Jainendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 (57) ACC 791, Pushpendra Kumar Goel vs. State of U.P. and others, MANU/UP/0070/2009, and Rajesh Awasthi vs. State of U.P., (2015) 88 ACC 381.
The Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951 in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Mahbub Khan, 1969 Cri LJ 26, has explained the phrase "general nature of material allegations". The Supreme Court observed as under:
"Without attempting to be exhaustive, we may state that when a person is stated to be a 'thief' that allegation is vague. Again, when it is said that 'A' stole a watch from X on a particular day and at a particular place the allegation can be said to be particular. Again, when it is stated that 'X' is seen at crowded bus stands and he picks pocket it is of a general nature of a material allegation...".
The perusal of notice discloses that it contains the general nature of material allegations levelled against the petitioner and furthermore, it was issued by the competent authority and as such, the notice is not bad in the eyes of law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner may file reply of the notice before the concerned authority, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits, if not already passed.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent authority to act in accordance with law.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner(s) alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 RK