KAREEM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing a notice dated 18.03.2020 issued by the District Magistrate, Sitapur under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. He has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 3 and 4 not to harass the petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid notice, which is impugned herein.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for petitioner Sri Anurag Singh is that the notice has been issued on the basis of a single criminal case, whereas, Section 2(b)(i) defines 'Goonda' to mean a person who either by himself or as member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abates the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, or Chapter XVI, or Chapter XXII of the said code. The lodging of a single criminal case against the petitioner does not make him, a person, who habitually commits any aforesaid offence. In this regard he relies upon a judgment of this Court dated 23.05.2018 rendered in Writ Petition No. 12459 (M/B) of 2018; Suresh Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. He also relies upon an interim order passed by this Court on 22.09.2020 in Writ Petition No. 14688 (M/B) of 2020 wherein this Court interfered at the interim stage on the ground that a single criminal case would not make the person a Goonda under Section 2(b)(i) as it would not be proof of the fact that he is habitual of committing an offence referred in the said provision. It is also the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in the single F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner there were five accused but only the petitioner and one other person, namely, Sahabuddin have been proceeded under the Goondas Act. He informed that petition of Sri Sahabuddin is pending, but, there is no interim protection therein.