# Ravi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1680
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3277 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51585
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - U.P. Control of Goondas
Act, 1970 - Sections 2(b) & 3(1) - Notice
Validity

Petitioner,
enlarged
on
bail
(20.06.2023), claimed consensual relationship
with the victim, who confirmed in her Section
164 Cr.P.C. St.ment that she married him
willingly and was major. Court held that a
solitary case does not establish habitual
criminality required for "goonda" classification
under Section 2(b). Notice lacked general nature
of material allegations, violating mandatory
requirements under Section 3(1), as per Ramji
Pandey Vs St. of U.P., 1981 Cri LJ 1083 and
Bhim Sen Tyagi Vs St. of U.P., 1999 (2) JIC 192
(All)
(FB).
Notice
deemed
defective,
unsupported by evidence of habitual offences,
and contrary to victim's St.ment. Presumption of
lawful official acts under Section 114(e),
Evidence Act rebutted. Notice quashed for gross
violation of law. St. directed to ensure public
servants act within legal bounds, with potential
disciplinary action for violations. Writ allowed
with Rs. 20,000/- costs payable by St. within
two months. Compliance to be reported within
ten weeks. (Paras 9-20)

Writ Petition Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

1680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above, it is clear that passport or travel
document of a person, who is facing trial
can be refused by the authority concerned
during pendency of his criminal case, but
there is no statutory bar for giving no
objection by the court concerned. No hard
and fast straight jacket formula can be laid
down regarding issuance of permission or
giving no objection by the court concerned
for issuance of passport. It is always
discretion of the court concerned and
depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case, act and conduct of the accused
as well as nature of alleged offence
committed by him and stage of trial, etc.
Some time on account of enmity or ill will
one party enmesh the other party in a
frivolous criminal case to settle his
personal score, therefore, in the interest of
justice, it is necessary to consider all
aspects of the matter and surrounding
circumstances while granting or refusing
the no objection for renewal or reissue of
passport or travel documents by the court
concerned.

11. Thus, this Court after considering
the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka
Gandhi (Supra), is of the view that the
learned trial court had completely ignored
the Notification dated 25.08.1993 as well
as Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019
issued by the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi (referred
above) while passing the impugned order
and had rejected the application of the
petitioner for grant of permission for
renewal of application for passport, thus,
the impugned order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law, therefore, the same is liable to
be quashed and the matter is liable to be
remanded back to the learned trial court
concerned.

12. In view of above, the impugned
order dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V,
Room No.29, Lucknow, by means of which
application for renewal of passport of
petitioner was rejected, is hereby quashed
and the matter is being remanded back to
the learned trial court concerned for
passing an order afresh in light of the
Notification dated 25.08.1993 and the
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as
well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka
Gandhi (Supra).

13. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition is allowed with direction to the
learned trial court i.e. Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-V,
Room
No.29,
Lucknow that if the petitioner moves a
fresh application for grant of permission for
renewal of passport within ten days from
today,
the
same
may
be
decided
expeditiously i.e. within fifteen days from
its filing in view of the above observations.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1680
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3277 of 2024

Ravi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
3 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1681
Criminal Law - U.P. Control of Goondas
Act, 1970 - Sections 2(b) & 3(1) - Notice
Validity

Petitioner,
enlarged
on
bail
(20.06.2023), claimed consensual relationship
with the victim, who confirmed in her Section
164 Cr.P.C. St.ment that she married him
willingly and was major. Court held that a
solitary case does not establish habitual
criminality required for "goonda" classification
under Section 2(b). Notice lacked general nature
of material allegations, violating mandatory
requirements under Section 3(1), as per Ramji
Pandey Vs St. of U.P., 1981 Cri LJ 1083 and
Bhim Sen Tyagi Vs St. of U.P., 1999 (2) JIC 192
(All)
(FB).
Notice
deemed
defective,
unsupported by evidence of habitual offences,
and contrary to victim's St.ment. Presumption of
lawful official acts under Section 114(e),
Evidence Act rebutted. Notice quashed for gross
violation of law. St. directed to ensure public
servants act within legal bounds, with potential
disciplinary action for violations. Writ allowed
with Rs. 20,000/- costs payable by St. within
two months. Compliance to be reported within
ten weeks. (Paras 9-20)

Writ Petition Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Shankar Ji Shukla Vs Ayukt Allahabad Mandal,
2005 (52) ACC 638 (Para 11)

2. Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Vs St. of U.P.,
2011 (1) ACrJ 207 (Para 11)

3. Idu Ali Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 2895/2023 (Para 12)

4. Ramji Pandey Vs St. of U.P., 1981 Cri LJ 1083
(Para 12)

5. Bhim Sen Tyagi Vs St. of U.P., 1999 (2) JIC
192 (All) (FB) (Para 12)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J. &
Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner,
learned
counsel
for
the
informant and learned A.G.A. for the State
respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned Notice dated 31.01.2024 issued
by
Additional
District
Magistrate-
Administration, District- Gorakhpur, in
case no.- D 202305310002546, under
Section 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas
Act,( State Vs. Ravi), Police Station-
Khajni, District- Gorakhpur.

3. The petitioner has been implicated
in this case under section 3/4 of U.P.
Control of Goondas Act because of his
implication in case crime no. 340 of 2022,
under sections- 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC
and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Khajni, District- Gorakhpur.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted
that
the
above
case
was
registered against the petitioner when he
had consenting relationship with the victim.
She left her house on her own and married
the petitioner at Mumbai. In her statements
recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and
164 Cr.P.C., she claimed herself to be major
and clearly stated that the petitioner never
used any force against her. She has stated
that she wanted to live with the petitioner.
Petitioner was enlarged on bail by this
Court on 20.06.2023 in the aforesaid case.

5. Apart from the above implication,
there is no case registered against the
petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has
further submitted that the notice dated
31.01.2024 issued by the respondent no. 2
is bad in law. It does not contains the
general nature of material allegations.
1682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Learned AGA has opposed the
submissions and has stated that the
petitioner has opportunity of making
representation before the respondent no. 2
and therefore his writ petition does not
deserves to be entertained by this Court.
Petitioner has criminal history of one case
and one beat report is also against him as
mentioned in the notice.

8. There are no disputed facts
warranting call of counter-affidavit from
the respondents.

9. After hearing the rival contentions
a look at the definition of ''Goonda'' is
required to be made as defined under
section 2(b) of U.P. Control of Goondas
Act, 170 which is as follows:-

" 2[(b) 'Goonda' means a person
who-

(i) either by himself or as a
member or leader of a gang, habitually
commits or attempts to commit, or abets the
commission of an offence punishable under
Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section
294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter
XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter
XXII of the said Code; or

(ii) has been convicted for an
offence punishable under the Suppression
of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,
1956; or

(iii) has been convicted not less
than thrice for an offence punishable under
the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public
Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section
27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or

(iv) is generally reputed to be a
person who is desperate and dangerous to
the community; or

(v) has been habitually passing
indecent remarks or teasing women or
girls; or

(vi) is a tout;

 Explanation.- 'Tout' means a
person who-

(a) accepts or obtains, or agrees
to accept or attempts to obtain from any
person for himself or for any other person,
any gratification whatever as a motive or
reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal
means any public servant or member of
Government,
Parliament
or
of
State
Legislature, to do or forbear to do anything
or to show favour or, disfavour to any
person or to render or attempt to render
any service or disservice to any person,
with the Central or State Government,
Parliament or State Legislature, any local
authority,
Corporation,
Government
Company or public servant; or

(b) procures, in consideration of
any remuneration moving from any legal
practitioner
interested
in
any
legal
business,
or proposes
to
any legal
practitioner or to any person interested in
legal business to procure, in consideration
of any remuneration moving from either of
them, the employment of legal practitioner
in such business; or

(c) for the purposes mentioned in
explanation (a) or (b), frequents the
precincts of civil, criminal or revenue
Courts, revenue or other offices, residential
colonies or residences or vicinity of the
aforesaid or railway or bus stations,
landing stages, lodging places or other
places of public resort; or

(vii) is a house-grabber.

Explanation. - 'House-grabber'
means a person who takes or attempts to
take or aids or abets in taking unauthorised
possession or having lawfully entered
unlawfully remains in possession, of a
building including land, garden, garages or
out-houses appurtenant to a building.]
3 All. Ravi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1683

(viii) is involved in offences
punishable under the Regulation of Money
Lending Act, 1976;

(ix) is involved in offences
punishable
under
the
Unlawful
Activities(Prevention) Act, 1966 and the
Indian Forest Act, 1927;

(x)
is
involved
in
illegally
transporting and/or smuggling of cattle and
indulging in acts in contravention of the
provisions in the Prevention of cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of
Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960;

(xi)
is
involved
in
human
trafficking for purposes of commercial
exploitation, forced labour, bonded labour,
child labour, sexual exploitation, organ
removing and trafficking, beggary and like
activities.]

10. This Court finds that the petitioner
is not alleged to be leader of or member of
any gang or he himself habitually commits
or attempts to commit or abets the
commission of offences mentioned in the
definition clause quoted above.

11. There is a solitary case registered
against him and he was not found to be
habitual of abduction of women or girls.
This Court in the case of Shankar Ji
Shukla Vs. Ayukt Allahabad Mandal and
others reported in 2005 (52) ACC 638
and in the case of Lalani Pandey @ Vijay
Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2011(1) ACrJ 207 has held that a person
cannot be held to be 'goonda' only on the
basis of one or two acts. He can be held to
be 'goonda' only when he is in the habit of
committing repeated offences.

12. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Idu Ali Vs. State of U.P.
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2895 of
2023) and others has held that where
general nature of material allegations have
not been mentioned in the notice issued
under section 3 of the Act, notice will not
be considered to be in accordance with
mandatory provision of law as follows:-

"Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner drew our attention to two Full
Bench decisions in Ramji Pandey Vs. State
of U.P. and others; 1981 Cri LJ 1083 and
Bhim Sen Tyagi v. State of U.P. through
D.M. Mahamaya Nagar, 1999 (2) JIG 192
(All) (FB).

In Ramji Pandey's case (supra), it
has
specifically
been
observed
in
paragraph 7 of the judgment that although
the expression "material allegations" has
not been defined by that Act, according to
the
dictionary
meanings,
the
word
"material"
means
"important
and
essential", "of significance". The word
"allegation" means statement or assertion
of facts. Thus, the notice under Section 3(1)
should contain the essential assertions of
facts in relation to the matters set out in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the Act. It needs not refer to
any evidence or other particulars or
details. The names of witnesses, and
persons who may have made the complaint
against the person against whom action is
proposed to be taken or the time, date and
place of the offence committed by the
person needs not be mentioned in the
notice. There is a distinction between the
"general nature of material allegations"
and
"particulars
of
allegations".
In
accordance with the former expression, the
notice needs not give any details of the
allegations, instead the requirement of law
would be satisfied if the notice contains a
general statement of facts which need not
contain any details or particulars. In Ram
Pandey's
case,
where
there
were
allegations that, (a) the petitioner was a
1684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
goonda, (b) his movements were causing
alarm, danger and harm to the lives and
properties of the persons within the circle
of
P.S.-Sikandarpur
and
there
was
reasonable ground for believing that he
was engaged in the commission and
abetment of offences punishable under
Chapters XI, XII and XXII of the Indian
Penal Code, and (c) the witnesses were not
willing to give evidence against him by
reason of apprehension on their part as
regards their safety and danger to their
persons and personal property. Regarding
the aforesaid sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and
(c), the material allegations of general
nature were that there were various cases
pending against the petitioner and the
crime numbers and sections of those cases
had been given in the notice and it was
mentioned therein whether the petitioner
had been convicted or acquitted in the
cases or they were pending. In spite of
mention of the crime numbers and sections
and status of those cases, the notice in
Ramji Pandey's case (supra) was held not
to contain the general nature of material
allegations and it was struck down.

In the present case also, nothing
more than mention of the crime number and
sections is all that we find, instead of the
general nature of material allegations. A
list
of
case
crimes/first
information
reports/beat report registered against the
petitioner does not satisfy the test of a valid
notice under Section 3(1) carrying the
"general nature of material allegations".
Truly, the notice, on the foundation of
which the order impugned has been made,
is strictly in the teeth of the law laid down
consistently by this Court; particularly, the
Full Bench decision in Ramji Pandey
(supra) and reiterated in Bhim Sain Tyagi
(supra). A notice under Section 3(1) of the
kind that is the foundation of proceedings
here has been held in Bhim Sain Tyagi
(supra) and in earlier decisions also, to
violate the minimum guarantee of the
opportunity that the Statute envisages for a
person proceeded with/against under the
Act of 1970. Thus, in this case, the
impugned order, founded as it is, on a
notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, stands
vitiated by defects that go to the root of the
matter."

13.

In
view
of
the
above
consideration, it is clear that the respondent
no. 2 has issued the impugned notice
without considering the provisions of law
only on the basis of implication of the
petitioner in a single case and on the basis
of a beat report. The implication of the
petitioner in the case crime no. 340/2022
was not supported by victim herself in her
statement recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C., and she had married the applicant
as well. Therefore, the recital in the notice
that the petitioner is a goonda and
habitually commits the offences under
Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian
Penal Code and witnesses are not willing to
give evidence against him by reason of
apprehension on their part regarding their
safety etc., are absolutely false.

14. There is presumption in favour of
performance of official acts under section
114, illustrations (e) of Evidence Act that
they have been regularly performed. This
Court finds that the presumption in favour
of respondent no.2 of performance of his
official acts in accordance with law stands
rebutted by the undisputed facts of this case
and relevant provisions of law.

15. This is a case where the
respondent no. 2, Additional District
Magistrate-Administration,
District-
Gorakhpur, has issued the impugned notice
in gross violation of law and acting against
3 All. Irfan Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1685
presumption of fairness in due discharge of
his official duties.

16. This Court restraints itself from
passing any further remarks against the
respondent no. 2 but a direction is being
issued to the respondent no.1, Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Home,
Government of U.P., Lucknow that he
should ensure that the public servants
exercising powers of the State should
remain within the bounds of law and
violation of law may entail disciplinary
proceedings against them.

17. The impugned notice is hereby
quashed.

18. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- payable
to the petitioner by the State within two
months.

19. Registrar(Compliance) is directed
to communicate this order to respondent
nos. 1 and 2 within a week.

20. Respondent no. 1 will report
compliance
of
this
order
to
the
Registrar(Compliance) of this Court within
ten weeks.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1685
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9505 of 2013

Irfan Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Anurag Pathak, Sri Swetashwa Agarwal,
Sri Srijan Pandey

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections
145 & 146 - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 227 -dispute relating to possession -
attachment of property - revisional court setting
aside order of Executive Magistrate - claim of
ownership based on sale deeds - title based on
Land Acquisition Reference alleged to be forged
- pendency of civil suit - no effective interim
order of civil court indicating possession -
apprehension of breach of peace - Magistrate
concerned with maintenance of peace and
tranquillity - revisional court not powerless to
set aside findings ignoring apparent facts and
evidence - no manifest or patent violation of
law - no interference required .

Writ petition dismissed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath
and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423.

2. Mahar Jahan and Others v. State of Delhi and
Others, (2004) 13 SCC 421.

3. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and
Others, AIR 1985 SC 472.

4. Smt. Prema Devi v. State of U.P. and
Another, 2007 (10) ADJ 227.

5. Aman Deep Singh Shishya v. State of U.P.
and Another, 2023:AHC:241628.

6. Sanjai Kumar and Another v. VIth Additional
District Judge, Bareilly and Others, 1996 Cri LJ
2413.

7. Abdul Gafoor v. State of U.P., 1992 JIC 35.

8. Raj Bahadur and Others v. State of U.P. and
Another, Criminal Revision No. 1032 of 1994
(decided on 25 July 1994).

9. Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. State and
Another, AIR 1994 SC 1436.