Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Latest Legal News