Swami Prakashanand v. Presence

cases registered against the Petitioner,FIR Nos. 130 of 2022, 204 of 2022, 226 of 2022, 276 of 2022, and 339 of 2022all arising out of the same property dispute and lodged by the same complainant family, namely Respondents Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The Petitioner contends that these FIRs have been filed as a counterblast to the civil suit, and that no charge sheet or conviction has resulted therefrom.

5. The record reveals that pursuant to the Chalani Report, the District Magistrate issued a notice dated 18.01.2023 under Section 3(1) of the Act calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be declared a “goonda” within the meaning of Section 2(b). The said notice, according to the Petitioner, does not disclose any specific acts or particulars constituting habitual criminality or public danger, and merely reproduces the statutory language of the Act.

6. On 15.03.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, directed that no further proceedings shall be initiated pursuant to the impugned notice, and the said interim protection has continued to date. The matter has now been placed for final adjudication before this Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Lalit Belwal, assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Belwal and Mr. Ashish Belwal, submitted that the entire proceedings under the Goondas Act are vitiated for non-compliance with in the mandatory statutory requirements. It was contended that the impugned Chalani Report dated 01.01.2023 and the notice dated Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 2 Ashish Naithani J.

18.01.2023 are wholly unsustainable, as they fail to indicate any cogent material satisfying the definition of “goonda” under Section 2(b) of the Act.

8. It was urged that all five FIRs mentioned in the Chalani Report pertain to the same property dispute, and have been lodged by the same complainant family with identical allegations. The Petitioner has neither been convicted nor even charge-sheeted in any of those cases. The learned Counsel submitted that mere pendency of FIRs cannot confer jurisdiction upon the District Magistrate to initiate proceedings under the Act.

9. It was further contended that the impugned notice is not in conformity with Form-I appended to the Schedule of the Act, as it does not narrate the “general nature of material allegations” in a narrative form, thereby depriving the Petitioner of an opportunity to make an effective representation. The proceedings, therefore, are violative of the principles of natural justice.

10. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Goondas Act is a preventive measure meant to curb habitual offenders whose activities pose a threat to public order, and not a tool to settle civil disputes or to coerce an individual involved in private litigation. It was argued that the invocation of the Act in a civil property dispute amounts to gross abuse of process and colourable exercise of power.

11. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner has earlier approached this Court in WPCRL No. 1952 of 2022, seeking registration of an FIR against Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 for acts of forgery and property grabbing, and that the said petition is still pending. The initiation of the present proceedings immediately thereafter demonstrates mala fide intent and retaliation by the local police in collusion with the private Respondents.

12. Learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Rakesh Negi, submitted that the proceedings in question Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 3 Ashish Naithani J. have been initiated strictly in accordance with law. It was argued that the Chalani Report dated 01.01.2023 was submitted by the jurisdictional police after due verification of multiple complaints and recorded statements of local residents who had expressed apprehension and fear due to the conduct of the Petitioner. It was further contended that the District Magistrate, upon receipt of such material, exercised his statutory power to issue a show-cause notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, and that the process is at a preliminary stage.

13. The learned A.G.A. argued that the Goondas Act confers preventive jurisdiction on the District Magistrate to maintain public order and tranquility. It was submitted that the authority is not required to wait for conviction or final determination in the criminal cases before exercising preventive powers. The Petitioner will have full opportunity to present his defence and rebut the allegations during the proceedings before the District Magistrate, and hence the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

14. Learned A.G.A. further contended that the impugned action cannot be quashed merely because the same individuals are complainants in multiple FIRs; what is relevant is the pattern of recurring disputes, consistent public complaints, and the apprehension of breach of peace within the community.

15. It was further submitted that the District Magistrate has not yet passed any final order declaring the Petitioner as a “goonda”, and therefore no adverse civil consequence has crystallised. The Petitioner’s plea of mala fides or misuse of power, being based on assumptions, is untenable at this stage.

16. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, Mr. Neeraj Garg, assisted by Mr. Yashpal Singh, opposed the petition and contended that the Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 4 Ashish Naithani J. Petitioner has a long history of violent and intimidatory behaviour. It was argued that the Petitioner has repeatedly attempted to take forcible possession of land belonging to the Respondents and other adjoining residents, and that several incidents of trespass, vandalism, and threats have been reported to the police. The Respondents submitted that they, as law-abiding citizens, have been constrained to approach the authorities for protection of their property and personal safety.

17. It was further submitted that the Petitioner’s activities have created serious tension in the locality, compelling the police to intervene on multiple occasions to prevent escalation. The preventive proceedings under the Goondas Act have been invoked not merely on account of private enmity but in response to repeated instances of disturbance of peace, which affect the public at large.

18. Learned Counsel for the private Respondents also emphasized that the Petitioner’s claim of being a “spiritual person” is contradicted by his repeated involvement in criminal cases and altercations. It was argued that when multiple FIRs of similar nature are registered within a short period, they reflect habitual behaviour and not isolated incidents. The proceedings under the Act are therefore justified to safeguard community peace and prevent further law-and-order situations.

19. It was lastly contended that the interim protection granted by this Court has emboldened the Petitioner to continue his acts of intimidation and encroachment. Hence, it was urged that the writ petition be dismissed to enable the District Magistrate to conclude the preventive proceedings in accordance with law.

20. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the factual background of the present case does not disclose any element of habitual criminality or threat to public order that Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 5 Ashish Naithani J. would justify invocation of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. The materials relied upon in the Chalani Report dated 01.01.2023 consist primarily of five FIRs lodged by members of the same family Respondents Nos. 5, 6, and 7 all arising from a continuing civil property dispute pending adjudication before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh. Each of these FIRs concerns allegations of trespass, damage to boundary walls, and verbal altercations regarding possession, matters which by their very nature fall within the realm of private civil contestation rather than acts affecting public tranquility.

21. It is settled that the Goondas Act confers extraordinary and preventive powers intended to protect public order from habitual offenders whose conduct poses a continuing danger to society. Such powers, being of drastic consequence, must be exercised with circumspection and in strict conformity with statutory safeguards. The Hon’ble Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P., 1981 SCC OnLine All 305, categorically held that “the provisions of the Act being stringent, the question of liberal construction does not arise and the notice contemplated by Section 3 must strictly conform to Form I appended to the Schedule.” The Court further observed that the “general nature of material allegations” must be stated in a narrative form sufficient to enable the noticee to prepare an effective defence. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the notice bad in law.

22. Tested on the anvil of the above principle, the notice dated 18.01.2023 issued by the District Magistrate does not satisfy the statutory test. The notice merely reproduces the language of Section 3(1) without setting out the specific acts alleged to constitute goonda activity. There is no reference to dates, places, or witnesses of any incident indicating habitual behaviour or danger to public peace. A mere enumeration of FIR numbers, Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 6 Ashish Naithani J. without narration of underlying conduct, fails to meet the mandatory requirement of disclosure under Form I of the Schedule to the Act.

23. The contention of the State that the proceedings are at a preliminary or show-cause stage cannot by itself justify continuation of a patently illegal process. Where the very initiation of proceedings is contrary to law and founded on material extraneous to the purpose of the statute, the High Court is not precluded from exercising its writ jurisdiction at the threshold to prevent misuse of preventive powers. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar intervention when the impugned action is ex facie without jurisdiction or actuated by mala fides.

24. The reliance placed by the State on the preventive character of the statute is unexceptionable in principle, yet such power must rest upon material indicating that the person sought to be proceeded against has become a habitual offender whose activities disturb public order. The record before this Court reveals no such finding or material. The Chalani Report merely reproduces the allegations of the same private parties involved in civil litigation. There is no indication of any independent inquiry, public complaint, or recurring acts extending beyond the confines of the private dispute.

25. As regards the submission of the private Respondents that the Petitioner has been intimidating local residents, the Chalani Report does not name any person other than the complainant family or refer to any public witness corroborating those assertions. It thus appears that the proceedings have been initiated not on objective satisfaction but on partisan allegations of interested individuals. The preventive mechanism of the Goondas Act cannot be converted into an instrument for furthering private vendetta or influencing pending civil proceedings.

26. It is equally pertinent that the civil court is already seized of the underlying property dispute and this Court, in WPMS No. 2585 of 2022, has restrained both parties from creating third-party interest in the Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 7 Ashish Naithani J. property. In such circumstances, invocation of preventive proceedings by one party to the civil dispute against the other undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and offends the principle of fairness in administrative action.

27. The law is well-settled that mere pendency of criminal cases or registration of FIRs does not ipso facto render a person a “goonda”. In Deepak v. State of U.P., (2011) 2 ADJ 117, and in Brijendra Prasad v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC OnLine All 1811, the Courts have consistently held that the power under Section 3(1) of the Act cannot be exercised mechanically on the basis of unverified or private complaints, and that the authority must record reasons demonstrating habituality and public impact. The absence of such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned Chalani Report dated 01.01.2023 and notice dated 18.01.2023 suffer from fundamental procedural infirmities and jurisdictional error. The material relied upon does not disclose any act affecting public order; the notice fails to state the nature of allegations as mandated by Form I; and the proceedings appear to have been initiated in the backdrop of private animosity. Allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to endorsing an abuse of statutory power.

29. Accordingly, this Court holds that the initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, is unsustainable in law. ORDER In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds that the Chalani Report dated 01.01.2023 submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Rishikesh, and the notice dated 18.01.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, do not Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 8 Ashish Naithani J. withstand judicial scrutiny. Both have been issued without adherence to the procedural safeguards mandated under the Act and in the absence of material establishing any habitual criminal conduct or disturbance of public order on the part of the Petitioner. Consequently, the impugned Police Report as well as the notice are hereby quashed. All further proceedings taken pursuant thereto shall stand set aside. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from initiating proceedings afresh, strictly in accordance with law, should credible and independently verifiable material arise in future warranting such action. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. Dated:21.11.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Writ Petition No.370 of 2023, “Swami Prakashanand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others - 9 Ashish Naithani J.