# Amit Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1261
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3010 of 2022
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Deepak Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48474
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - UP Control of
Goondas Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 3(1),
3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c) & 4 - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148,
323, 336, 352, 427, 452 & 504 - Writ filed
against the Show Cause Notice issued under
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Goondas Act, - on the grounds that mandatory
provisions provided under section 3(1) - in the
light of judgement of Full Bench (five Judges)
Bhim Sain Tyagi' & Ramji Pandey' Cases -
impugned notice is liable to be quashed - writ
petition allowed - direction to pass a fresh order
accordingly.(Para - 8, 9, 12, 13)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. Amit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1261
produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of
course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High
Court will exercise its jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage."

(1) The High Court ordinarily
would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction
to quash a criminal proceeding and, in
particular, a first information report unless
the allegations contained therein, even if
given face value and taken to be correct in
their entirety, disclosed no cognizable
offence.

(2) For the said purpose the
Court, save and except in very exceptional
circumstances, would not look to any
document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be
exercised very sparingly. If the allegations
made in the FIR disclose commission of an
offence, the Court shall not go beyond the
same and pass an order in favour of the
accused to hold absence of any mens rea or
actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a
civil dispute, the same by itself may not be
a ground to hold that the criminal
proceedings should not be allowed to
continue."

39. We further find force in the
argument that petitioners in the facts of the
present case have remedy available to them
of seeking appropriate protection under
Section 438/439 of the code of criminal
procedure and in the event such remedy is
availed, it shall be dealt with in accordance
with law without being influenced by any
observation made in the present judgment.
We clarify that examination of facts and
legal questions in the present judgment
were confined to the question posed at the
outset i.e. whether interference in the
impugned FIR is required in the present
petitions or not? All legal and factual issues
are thus left open for determination at
appropriate stage of the proceedings in
accordance with law. Specific role of each
petitioner is also not required to be
examined by us, at this stage, for the above
reasons.

40. In view of our above deliberations
we decline to interfere in the present writ
petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1261
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3010 of 2022

Amit Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajnish Shukla, Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

(i)
Criminal
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - UP Control of
Goondas Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 3(1),
3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c) & 4 - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148,
323, 336, 352, 427, 452 & 504 - Writ filed
against the Show Cause Notice issued under
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Goondas Act, - on the grounds that mandatory
provisions provided under section 3(1) - in the
light of judgement of Full Bench (five Judges)
Bhim Sain Tyagi' & Ramji Pandey' Cases -
impugned notice is liable to be quashed - writ
petition allowed - direction to pass a fresh order
accordingly.(Para - 8, 9, 12, 13)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bhim Said Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. (Alld. Criminal
Cases 1999 (39) 321),

2. Ram Ji Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (Criminal
Law Journal 1981 (1083).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition seeks
quashing of the impugned show cause
notice dated 01.02.2022 issued by the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue), Gorakhpur, under Section 3⁄4 U.P.
Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

3. It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that petitioner is a student
of B.A. II year and his examination is
going to start from 22.03.2022 and his
conduct has always been good. He has been
falsely implicated in the impugned notice
on account of involvement in a solitary
case under Section 3⁄4 U.P. Control of
Goondas Act. The petitioner is neither the
gang leader nor he is associated with any
gang as member and, therefore, no offence
under the Goondas Act is made out. He has
falsely been implicated in Case Crime
No.161 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148,
452, 323, 504, 506, 336, 352, 427 I.P.C. It
has next been contended that Investigating
Officer has submitted charge sheet in the
aforesaid case. The petitioner has been
enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4. Counsel for the petitioner next
argued that the respondents with mala fide
intention initiated proceedings and issued
notice dated 01.02.2022 under Section 3⁄4 of
U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 against
the petitioner, which is faulty and without
following the mandatory provisions provided
under Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been
further argued that notice should contain
essential assertion of facts in relation to
matter set out in clause a, b and c sub Section
1 of Section 3 of Goondas Act. The notice
dated 01.02.2022, challenged herein, does not
refer to any evidence or facts.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon full Bench
decision (five Judges) Bhim Sain Tyagi
Vs. State of U.P. reported in Alld. Criminal
cases, 1999 (39) 321 and RamJi Pandey
Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in
Criminal Law Journal 1981 (1083) and two
other judgments passed by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the
submissions of counsel for the petitioner
and submitted that present petition has been
filed against the show cause notice and
petitioner has remedy to reply of the show
cause notice before the authority. The
impugned
notice
issued
against
the
petitioner is just and proper and according
to provisions laid down in Section 3 of
Goondas Act. It is further submitted that it
is well settled proposition of law that on
solitary case, notice can be issued.

7. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the aforesaid
judgments.
5 All. Amit Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1263

8. The argument raised on behalf of
the petitioner with regard to notice is that it
does not contain the essential assertions
which are required by Section 3(1) clauses
a, b and c of Goondas Act. The notice
issued under Section 3⁄4 of the petitioner
does not contain the mandatory ingredients
provided under Section 3(1) of Goondas
Act. Notice issued to the petitioner is
quoted below:

उ०प्र०, र्ुण्डा लियोंत्रण अलधलियम
की धािा- 3/4 के अन्तर्गत ि लिसः-

सूंख्या- 249/ पेर्कार-22

 भदनाूंक 01.02.22

च ूंभक मेरे सामने रखी गयी स चना के
आधार पर मुझे यह प्रतीत होता है भक अभमत
र्माश पुत्र धमेन्द्र र्माश, भन० भमश्रौली, थाना गगहा,
भजला गोरखपुर एक गुण्डा है अथाशत वह स्वयूं
िारतीय दण्ड सूंभहता के अध्याय 16,17,22 के
अन्तगशत दण्डनीय अपराध करता है। समाज के
भलये दुःसाहभसक एवूं खतरनाक व्यन्धक्त होने की
इसकी सामान्य ख्याभत है। वह िा०द०सूं० के
अध्याय 16,17,22 में वभणशत अपराधो को करने
का अपराधी है। इसकी गभतभवभधयाूं व्यन्धक्तयोूं
को खभत पहुूंचाने वाली हैं इसके िय के कारण
जनता को कोई िी व्यन्धक्त इसके भवरूद्ध पुभलस
को स चना देने गवाही दने को तैयार नहीूं होता हैं
इसके भवरूद्ध सारवान आरोप सूंलग्न हैः-
1- अभियुक्त के भवरूद्ध मु०अ०सूं 161/2021,
धारा 147, 148 ,452, 323, 504, 506, 336,
352, 427 िादभव अभधभनयम के भवरूद्ध
पूंजीकृत हुआ,भजसके भववेचनाूंपरान्त पजीकृत
हुआ, आरोप पत्र भदनाूंक 31.07.2021 को
न्यायालय प्रेभषत भकय गया, जो भवचाराधीन
न्यायालय है।

2- वीट स चना भदनाूंक 11.12.2021
थाना गगहा, रपट सूं० 53

अतः अभियुक्त अभमत र्माश पुत्र
धमेन्द्र र्माश, भन० भमश्रौली, थाना गगहा, भजला
गोरखपुर को एतद्द्वारा आदेर् भदया जाता है भक
वह मेरे समक्ष भदनाूंक 28.02.2022 को समय
10.00 बजे मेरे न्यायालय में उपभसभत होवे और
यभद चाहे तो उक्त सारवान आरोपो के सम्बि में
कारण बतलाते हुये अपना भलन्धखत स्पष्टीकरण
प्रस्तुत करे भक क्योूं न उसके भवरूद्ध उ०प्र०
गुण्डा भनयूंत्रण अभधभनयम अध्यादेर् 1970 की
उपधारा (3) के के अधीन आदेर् भदया जाये तथा
साथ ही मुझे यह िी स भचत करे भक क्या वह
अपने स्पष्टीकरण के समथशन में अपना अथवा
भकसी अन्य साक्षी का ( यभद ऐसा हो साभक्षयोूं के
नाम एवूं पते) का परीक्षण कराना चाहते है।

अभियुक्त अभमत र्माश पुत्र धमेन्द्र
र्माश, भन० भमश्रौली, थाना गगहा, भजला गोरखपुर
को पुनः यह स भचत भकया जाता है भक यभद वह
उपयुशक्त प्रकार से उपन्धस्थत नहीूं होता है एवूं
भनभदशष्ट समय के अन्दर कोई स्पष्टीकरण अथवा
स चना नहीूं देता है तो मान भलया जायेगा भक
अभियुक्त को उपरोक्त के सम्बि में कोई
स्पष्टीकरण देना/ भकसी िी साक्षी का परीक्षपण
नहीूं कराना चाहता है और मेरे द्वारा प्रस्ताभवत
आदेर् पाररत करने की कायशवाही कर दी
जायेगी।

9. On perusal of notice, it is apparent
that notice impugned lacks the assertion of
facts in relation to the matters set out in
Clause a, b and c and sub Section 1 of
Section 3 of Goondas Act. In the instant
case, the notice is general in nature and
lacking is material particulars. The notice
states that petitioner habitually commits
crimes or attempts to commit or abets the
commission of offences and is generally
reported to be a person, who is desperate
and dangerous to the community. Witnesses
are not willing to come forward to give
evidence
against
him by
reason
of
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
apprehension on their part as regards the
safety of their person and property.

10. In para-17 of judgment in RamJi
Pandey (Supra), the Court has held as
under :

"17. Learned Standing Counsel
urged that on a liberal construction of the
notice the material allegations on the basis
of which action against the petitioner is
proposed' to be taken are dis-cernable, and
as such the notice is not rendered illegal
and the proceedings taken against the
petitioner are valid. It is true that validity
of a notice is generally upheld if it
substantially conforms with the requirement
of law but while considering the validity of
a notice issued under Section 3 of the Act
the same considerations cannot be applied.
As noted earlier, the Act is extraordinary in
nature. Its provisions permit serious in-;
road on the liberty of a citizen as the
provisions permit extemment of a driven
(without a judicial trial. The power
conferred on the authorities and the
procedure provided by the Act seriously
impinge upon the fundamental rights of a
citizen and it makes a serious inroad on the
personal liberty. The provisions of the Act
provide slender safeguards to a citizen in
requiring the District Magistrate and other
authorities to give notice to the person
against whom action is proposed under the
Act and to set out the general nature of
material allegations in the notice with a
view to give opportunity to the person
concerned to submit his explanation and to
defend himself. The persons against whom
action is proposed to be taken under the
Act has a meagre opportunity of submitting
his explanation to the allegations contained
in the notice issued to him and to defend
himself by producing evidence before the
District Magistrate. These are the only
safeguaids which the provisions of the Act
provide to a citizen against Whom action is
proposed to be taken. In such a situation
the question of liberal jconstruction of
notice does not arise, The Drovisiento of
the Act, in our opinjjon, should be strictly
complied by the extortive while taking
action under the Act. This was emphasised
by the Supreme Court in Pandharinath's
case 1973 Cri LJ 612 Where it observed (at
P. 615):

We will only add that case
must be taken to ensure that the terms of
Sections 56 and 59 are strictly complied
and the slender safeguard which those
provisions offer are given, to the proposed]
exrternee.

this Court also made similar
observations; in Harsh Narainfs case 1972
All LJ 762 in saying that the executive must
strictly comply with the pirvisions of the
Act. We are therefore ' o$ the opinion that if
notice issued) under, Section 3(1) of the Act
is not in accorder lance with the provisions
of Section 3(1) of the Act and if it fails to
comply, with the mandatory requirements
of, setting out the general nature of
material allegations further proceedings
Initialed, in, pursuance of that notice
would, also be rendered Illegal."

11. In the aforesaid judgment, it has
been held that while issuing notice, the
executive must strictly comply with the
provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Goondas
Act.

12. We find that in view of the full
Bench decision, notice issued against the
petitioner is not in accordance with the
provisions of Section 3(1) of the Goondas
Act, hence, impugned notice under Section
3⁄4 of Goondas Act against the petitioner
5 All. Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathi Vs. Jai Ram Shukla & Ors.
1265
fails to comply with the mandatory
requirement of setting out the material
allegation and is not in accordance with the
provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned show cause notice
dated 01.02.2022 issued by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
Gorakhpur, under Section 3⁄4 U.P. Control
of Goondas Act, 1970 is hereby, quashed.
However, it is open to the District
Magistrate to pass a fresh order, if any
material is available against the petitioner.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1265
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2008 of 2005

Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathi ...Appellant
Versus
Jai Ram Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Brijendra Kumar,Sri Krishna Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vipul Kumar, Sr Mohan Srivastava

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section - 166 - Appeal filed by claimant -
for enhancement of compensation - Accident
is not disputed as well as insurance company
not disputed any liability - contributory
negligence of driver of Bus and Jeep involved
in accident - claimant-appellant who was a
passenger of said Bus sustained injuries -
resulting he become permanently disabled to
the tune of 50% - Tribunal Awarded Rs.
10,000/- on the ground that there is no loss
of income - medical bills and disability
certificated of claimant is highly disputed &
doubtful since only photo copies are available
on records - Disability certificate is not
conformity with the X-ray report on which
basis same is prepared - hence, learned
Tribunal rightly awarded compensation -
Appeal sans merit and is dismissed.(Para - 7,
9, 10, 11)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal is preferred by the
claimant-appellant for enhancement of
compensation awarded to him by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional
District Judge, Chitrakoot ('Tribunal', for
short), vide order dated 21.5.2005 in
M.A.C.P.
No.123/70/2001
(Dr.Suresh
Prashad Tripathi v. Jai Ram Shukla and
others) whereby claimant/appellant was
awarded Rs.10,000/-, as compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
claimant/appellant was doctor in Civil
Hospital, Chitrakoot. On 3.3.2001, at about
9:00 A.M., he was going from Kervi to
Banda for an official work by bus bearing
No. U.P.70-S/8555. The driver of the bus
was driving the bus rashly and negligently
and by driving so, he hit the Jeep
No.U.P.70-J/9604 near Pand Nala Puliya,
which was coming from the opposite
direction.
In
this
accident
appellant
sustained injuries. His right leg was
fractured and he became permanently
disabled.
Only
respondent
No.3-New
Indian Assurance Company Ltd. contested
the petition and filed its written statement.

3. It was claimed by the appellant that
he incurred Rs.1,60,000/- towards payment
of medical bills and became disabled
permanently to the tune of 50%, but