Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 91976 (ALL)

PIYUSHKANT ALIAS PIYUSHKANT UPADHYAY v. STATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/19789/2025 · 2025-09-14

Harvir Singh, Siddharth

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19789 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, 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. 184/2025, under section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station- Cantt., District- Varanasi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the following cases have been registered against the petitioner:- 1. Case Crime No. 100 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act. 2. Case Crime No. 063 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 354 Ka, 354 Kha, 376 Dha IPC. 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harish Kumar Srivastava, Kumar Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Piyushkant Alias Piyushkant Upadhyay .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions, but could not dispute the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Varanasi, but on the request of learned A.G.A., we have restrained ourselves. He 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. September 15, 2025 Rohit CRLP No. 19789 of 2025 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad