Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 88225 (ALL)

SHIVKANT v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/18555/2025 · 2025-08-22

Santosh Rai, Siddharth

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145675-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18555 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shivkant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Santosh Rai,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the Case No. 43/2025, under section 3(2) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station- Rabupura, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the following cases have been registered against the petitioners:- 1. Case Crime No. 30 of 2024, under Sections- 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Rabupura, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar. 2. Case Crime No.115 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 117 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Rabupura, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar. 3. Beat Report No. 40 dated 24.06.2025. 4. Beat Report No. 51 dated 24.06.2025. He has submitted that both cases have nothing to do with public peace, law and order and situation. It has been submitted that this Court in the case of Govardhan Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12619 of 2023 has held that by mere implication in one or two cases, accused does not becomes habitual offender and Goonda as per Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. He has submitted that impugned proceedings are absolutely illegal in view of another judgment of this Court in the Case of Ravi Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3277 of 2024. Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions, but could not dispute the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the above, impugned notice is hereby quashed. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. This Court was inclined to impose cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, Additional Commissioner of Police, Special Court, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, but on the request of Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A-I, we have restrained ourselves. She has assured that such casual notice under the provision of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, shall not be issued in future by respondent no. 3. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Rohit (Santosh Rai,J.) (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad