Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State/respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Upendra Singh, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 03.07.2021 issued under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 by respondent no.3-Additional District Magistrate, Gonda, in Case No. 1088 of 2021 : State Vs. Upendra Singh, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda.
It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a Contractor. The local police, with mala fide intention and due to political pressure, sent a beat report to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the Additional District Magistrate, Gonda. Thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate, Gonda, without going into the merits of the allegations and without applying his mind, issued the impugned show cause notice against the petitioner, which is arbitrary and malicious. He argued that in the impugned show cause notice, two cases have also been shown against the petitioner i.e. (1) Case Crime No. 166 of 2006 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 216 I.P.C. and (2) Case Crime No. 177 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda. He argued that in the first case i.e. Case Crime No. 166 of 2006, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 12.09.2016, whereas in second case i.e. Case Crime No.177 of 2020, the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has filed final report. He further submits that Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 shall be applicable only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is engaged or about to engage in commission of offence in the District or any part thereof. He further submits that Section 2(b)(i) clearly states that: "Goonda" means a person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, or Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code". He further submits that no evidence is coming forth that the petitioner is running a gang and, therefore, impugned notice dated 03.07.2021 under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is illegal and issued without application of mind, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jainendra alias Chhotu Singh Vs. State of U.P. : 2007 (57) ACC 791 and Atif Adnan Vs. District Magistrate, Faizabad : 2018 (36) LCD 1628.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned show cause notice and submitted that it is always open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before competent authority. He further submits that petitioner is indulged in criminal activity and there is every possibility that he is running a gang and on account of his fear and terror, no one has come forward to give any complaint or evidence against him, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
So far as the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, learned AGA has argued that in all the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the show cause notice only on the ground that the language of the show cause notice impugned in the said aforesaid cases itself indicated that the same has been on a printed proforma without ascertaining whether the petitioner himself or as a member or leader of gang is 'goonda' and without recording reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is engaged or about to engage in the district or in part thereof in the commission of offences referred to in sub-section (i) to (iii) to Clause (b) of Section 2 or any such offence. But in the instant case, sufficient material against the petitioner has been indicated in the impugned show cause notice, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned show cause notice is defective one. Thus, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case.
Having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned show cause notice and also considering the gravity of offence levelled against the petitioner, it transpires from the impugned show cause notice that before issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate, Gonda has gone through the report of the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, which shows that the movement of the petitioner and his acts are causing and are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to person or property in various police station of district Ambedkar Nagar; his engage or likely to engage in the commission of offence punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code; and on account of fear and safety of life or property, no person has come forward to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner nor anyone has gone to give evidence against him in the Court. The Additional District Magistrate, Gonda, after going through the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police, Gonda, opined that though two cases have been registered against the petitioner but he is indulged in criminal activities since 2006 and continued and dangerous so as to render him being at large in Gonda district or in any part thereof is hazardous to the community and further the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. Therefore, Additional District Magistrate has reasoned to believe that the petitioner is likely to engage himself in such commission of offences. In these backgrounds, the Additional District Magistrate has issued the impugned show cause notice.
From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the Additional District Magistrate, after having sufficient reasons to believe that the act and the movement of the petitioner is hazardeous to the public at large in Gonda district, has issued the impugned show cause notice, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why order under Section 3 (3) of Act, 1970 cannot be passed against him but the petitioner, instead of replying to the said show cause notice, has approached this Court straightaway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant writ petition, which, from the facts and circumstance of the case, is not maintainable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 691, Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. : (2020) 12 SCC 572 and also the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.869 of 2018; Pramod Katyayn vs. State of U.P. and others.
Moreso, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us that prior to issuing the impugned show cause notice, the Additional District Magistrate, Gonda was not having sufficient reasons to believe that the act and movement of the petitioner is hazardous to the public at large in Gonda district. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment cited by the petitioner is distinguishable and the same are not applicable.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it shall be open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before the competent authority.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it 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, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the 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 :- 29.7.2021 Ajit/-