High Court Quashes Externment Order: Single Incident Insufficient to Label Individual as ‘Goonda’, Rules Allh. HC

243
0
Share:
advocate judicial party Advocates live steel v Departmental properly Evidence Divorce Property Factual Bail FIR 376 Bail bail Child Allahabad High Cour 1989 Appointment Investigation Cheque Fear mother IIIT court Law application Acquittal 29A Marriage Maintenance Dowry Application dowryMarriage bail Land Earning Justice Written Statement Maintenance Summoning Rape Video Death Bail Guilty jurisdiction 138Assault investigation Temple bail Wife velectricity Child Drinking final murder Love Cheque Throwing Brick Husband NDPS Case  allahabad addition preliminary evidence Cheque Bounce murder evidence grievances dowry 210 consideration order corporation advocate certificate marriage application mechanical maintenance financial evidence electricity wife probation bail individual investigation

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, under the bench of Hon’ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J., quashed an externment order issued against petitioner Guddu Chauhan, declaring that a single incident is insufficient to label an individual as a ‘goonda’ under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

In the case of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7436 of 2023, the petitioner, represented by advocates Zeeshan Mazhar and Abhishek Chandra, had challenged the legality of an order passed by the Commissioner Vindhyachal Division and Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Bhadohi. The order, dated 22nd June 2020, had directed the petitioner’s externment from District Bhadohi for six months, based on allegations of being a habitual offender and a danger to the community.

The Court, in its judgment, highlighted the legal definition of a ‘goonda’ as provided in Section 2(b) of the Goondas Act. It was observed that Clause (i) of Section 2(b) necessitates at least two incidents of commission of crime to treat an individual as a habitual offender. However, the notice issued to the petitioner referred to a single extreme instance, which fell short of the legal requirement.

The Court held, “Since in this case against the petitioner there is reference of one extreme instance only, the petitioner could not be deemed to be a habitual offender on the basis of that single incident only, so the notice falls short of legal requirement as provided in Clause (i) of Section 2(b) of the 1970 Act.

Emphasizing the importance of multiple incidents to invoke the penal provisions of the Act, the Court stated, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar and others (1984) 3 SCC 14 has been pleased to hold that it is essential to refer to at least two incidents of commission of crime for applicability of Clause (i) of Section 2(b) of the Act.”

In light of this legal interpretation, the Court allowed the writ petition, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 22nd June 2020 and the appellate court order dated 31st March 2022. The Court further directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bhadohi, for necessary actions.

Date of Decision: 27th July 2023

Guddu Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Download Judgment

Share: