Rizwan v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The petitioner, by means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2- Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Case No. 1245 of 2025 (Computerized Appeal No. C202501000001245) (Rizwan vs. State), under section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, whereby the stay application dated 28.04.2025 moved on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected as well as the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police /Executive Magistrate, Commissionrate Agra in Case No. 0040 of 2024 (State vs. Rizwan) under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

Facts giving rise to the instant petition is that a notice was served upon the petitioner by Deputy Commissioner of Police on 06.02.2025 to the effect that there are six different cases registered against him including three beat reports and petitioner has to appear before him or file his written objection with regard to the notice. Petitioner neither appeared nor submitted his reply to the notice due to his brother's illness, but when he become free, he submitted his objection to the notice. The same was decided by the by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 21.04.2025 and an order for externment against the petitioner was passed. The same was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the respondent no. 2, which was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2025. The same has been challenged by way of instant petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Case Crime no. 07 of 2019 final report has been filed and in another Case Crime No. 69 of 2020 State Government has withdrawn the case as it was filed during Covid-19 and rest four cases are still pending. He further submits that the impugned order is not a reasoned order as the same has been passed without considering the material evidence available on record.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the respondent no. 2 after due consideration of facts available on record rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 is justified and no interference is required by this Court.

Heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, evidently petitioner has criminal history beginning from the year 2017 to 2024 and has been indulging in various kind of crime. It is evident that looking to the criminal history a notice was served by Deputy Commissioner of Police for appearance of petitioner before him or for filing his objection and petitioner in turn filed his objection, which was thoroughly considered and after looking into the evidence on record an order of externment for six month was passed by respondent no. 3, which was assailed by way of filing an appeal before the Commissioner and the same was also after considering the evidence available on record and also after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the parties rejected by the Commissioner Agra- respondent no. 3.

I see no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Agra for externment of six months against the petitioner as well as order passed by the Commissioner Agra rejecting the appeal after due consideration of the facts available on record, therefore, prayer for quashing the impugned order stands rejected.

The instant writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad