Allahabad High Court
Ramvilash vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 22 April, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60121-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7099 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramvilash Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the impugned order dated 21.2.2025 passed by by respondent no.2, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Mainpuri, in Case No.1586 of 2022, Computerized Case No.D202201490001586 (State Vs. Ram Vilas), under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri, against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in following two cases:-
A. Case Crime No.205 of 2022, under Sections 323, 354-B, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri, registered on 12.8.2022.
B. Case Crime No.206 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 332, 353, 427, 504 IPC and 7/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, registered on the same day, i.e., 12.8.2022.
C. There is also a beat report dated 7.11.2022 registered against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both cases, Crime No. 205 of 2022 and Crime No.206 of 2022, relate to the same incident dated 12.8.2022. While Case Crime No. 205 of 2022 has been lodged by private party, Case Crime No.206 of 2022 has been lodged by police alleging that petitioner created obstructions in performance of duties of police. He has submitted that as per Section 2(b) of Goondas Act, petitioner is not a habitual offender. He has been implicated in this case by police on account of ulterior motives. He was implicated in a single case, two cases have been made out by one case and petitioner has been falsely implicated.
6. Learned AGA for State-respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that petitioner has an opportunity to prefer an appeal against impugned order before the Commissioner of Division and hence petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
7. After hearing the rival contentions a look at the definition of ''Goonda'' is required to be made as defined under section 2(b) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 170 which is as follows:-
"2[(b) 'Goonda' means a person who-
(i) 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, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or
(ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or
(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or
(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community; or
(v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or
(vi) is a tout;
Explanation.- 'Tout' means a person who-
(a) accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means any public servant or member of Government, Parliament or of State Legislature, to do or forbear to do anything or to show favour or, disfavour to any person or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or State Government, Parliament or State Legislature, any local authority, Corporation, Government Company or public servant; or
(b) procures, in consideration of any remuneration moving from any legal practitioner interested in any legal business, or proposes to any legal practitioner or to any person interested in legal business to procure, in consideration of any remuneration moving from either of them, the employment of legal practitioner in such business; or
(c) for the purposes mentioned in explanation (a) or (b), frequents the precincts of civil, criminal or revenue Courts, revenue or other offices, residential colonies or residences or vicinity of the aforesaid or railway or bus stations, landing stages, lodging places or other places of public resort; or
(vii) is a house-grabber.
Explanation. - 'House-grabber' means a person who takes or attempts to take or aids or abets in taking unauthorised possession or having lawfully entered unlawfully remains in possession, of a building including land, garden, garages or out-houses appurtenant to a building.]
(viii) is involved in offences punishable under the Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976;
(ix) is involved in offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1966 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927;
(x) is involved in illegally transporting and/or smuggling of cattle and indulging in acts in contravention of the provisions in the Prevention of cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960;
(xi) is involved in human trafficking for purposes of commercial exploitation, forced labour, bonded labour, child labour, sexual exploitation, organ removing and trafficking, beggary and like activities.]
8. This Court finds that the petitioner is not alleged to be leader of or member of any gang or he himself habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences mentioned in the definition clause quoted above.
9. In the impugned order, there is a description of two criminal cases and one beat report against the petitioner while as per the definition and law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well a by this Court "one" cannot be treated to be a 'habitual offender' unless and until there is a tendency of recurrence of the offence. In the instant case there is a solitary incident to the credit of the petitioner. We find that this order impugned has been passed in sheer abuse of power vested in the executive authorities of the district.
10. We are firm view that impugned order dated 21.2.2025 passed by by respondent no.2, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Mainpuri, is patently illegal and has been passed without application of mind.
11. Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District Mainpuri, is hereby quashed.
12. This writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Ruchi Agrahari (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Siddharth, J.)