Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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