Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21469-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2776 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kamil @ Mohd Kamil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M. Asif Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State. The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the notice dated 14.10.2024 issued under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 issued by Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Pilibhit, respondent no. 4. A perusal of the impugned notice issued that there are two cases registered against the petitioner, (i) Case Crime No. 160 of 2024, under Sections- 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S.- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit. (ii) Case Crime No. 263 of 2024, under Sections- 434 and 506 IPC, P.S.- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned notice is not in accordance with law. He has submitted that the first Case Crime No. 160 of 2024 was got registered by Afzal son of Nanhe Baksh, wherein charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and cognizance was taken thereon 06.12.2024. Thereafter on 18.12.2024 the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and a compromise application has been filed before the court praying for withdrawl of case. The second case was got registered by Shakeel Qadri claiming co-ownership in the land of Gata No. 175 and a partition suit is already pending between the parties since 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that both the cases are of minor nature and the second case is regarding land dispute. That this Hon'ble 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) ACr J 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. That on the basis of above noted two false cases the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1971. That the Petitioner is husband of the Village Pradhan Village Mahadeva and the one case registered by Afzal on the basis of Political rivalry and the second case was registered by the Shakil Qadri on account of to purchasing the 1/6 part of Gata No. 175 Village Mahadeva Meerpur Vahanpur Tehsil Bisalpur District Pilibhit. The petitioner is not Goonda as per the definition mention in the section 2(b)(1) and the petitioner is not habitual offender and belongs to the reputed family. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the submission and has submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing objection and re-representation against the impugned notice. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for this court. This court finds that the petitioner does not appears to be habitual offender and a person who can considered to be a Goonda as defined under Section 2(b)(i) of the Act. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 14.10.2024 deserves to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Rohit (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Siddharth, J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad