Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17260 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramsaran Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Sharma,Om Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA and have been taken through the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging a impugned cause notice dated 26.4.2019 issued by the respondent no.2 in Case No. D201916660000794 (State versus Ramsaran) under section 3 (1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act.
A perusal of the notice shows that it has described the petitioner as a Goonda who commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences under chapters 16, 17 and 22 of the IPC, and his general reputation is that he is dangerous to the community, and that his activities have posed a threat to the life and property of the common people, who are afraid to lodge a report against the petitioner or to give evidence against him. Some cases have been cited to prop up the invocation of the provisions of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act against the petitioner.
The petitioner submits that on the basis of the notice it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is a goonda; that the general nature of material allegations are missing from the notice; that the notice has been issued in a mechanical manner and deserves to be quashed.
Per contra the learned A.G.A. has submitted that mere issuing notice under the Goondas Act does not tantamount that the petitioner is Goonda. He may appear before the authority concerned to give reply to the show cause notice.
In this connection reference may be made to two decisions of the Apex Court: (1) Kabir Chawla V. State of U.P. 1994 SCC (Crl) 577 and (2) State of U.P. v. Chandra Shekhar Shukla (2000) 9 SCC 392.
In Kabir Chawla Vs. State of U.P. (supra) the Apex Court has set aside the order of High Court quashing the notice at the initial stage by observing that the petitioner could show cause before the District Magistrate that no case was disclosed for passing the order against him, and there was no reason for pre- supposing that the D.M. would not give a fair hearing on the matter.
In the case of State of U.P. v. Chandra Shekhar Shukla (supra) the Apex Court criticized the High Court for mechanically staying proceedings consequent to a notice under section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, by means of an interim order which disclosed non application of mind.
We, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the issuance of the notice by the Addl. District Magistrate, Sonebhadra. However, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally decided with the direction that in case the petitioner files his reply in pursuance of the impugned notice within three weeks from today, the same shall be taken as within time and final decision in the matter shall be taken by the said respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order along with the reply of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is finally disposed.
Order Date :- 25.6.2019 sfa/