Pintu Yadav v. State of U.P.), under Section

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya in Case No. 691 of 2025 (State Vs. Pintu Yadav @ Anurag Singh), under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as well as order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Case No. 2688 of 2025 (Pintu Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 against the order dated 31.07.2025.

3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was served with a notice on 15.07.2025 under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970) stating that there are three criminal cases registered against the petitioner in addition to a beat information written by the local police on the basis of the aforesaid a reply was sought as to why the petitioner be not proceeded under the Act of 1970. The petitioner filed a response on 30.07.2025 opposing the said application and submitted that all the offences are minor in nature and he has been granted bail by the trial court about the said matters.

4. After considering the reply of the petitioner the District Magistrate concerned by means of the order dated 31.07.2025 found that there was 2 CRLP No. 20673 of 2025 substance material to indicate that the petitioner is spreading fear in the society and accordingly found that all the ingredients fulfilled under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970 and has extern the petitioner for a period of six month. Against the order dated 31.07.2025 the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. It is on his application for interim relief before the appellate authority the order dated

21.08.2025 has been passed rejecting his application for interim relief against which the present writ petition has been filed.

6. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that application for interim relief has been rejected in most illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and accordingly, the same deserves interference by this Court. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rahul Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.; 2024:AHC:197282 where against rejection of interim order this Court has interfered and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within two months and during the said period has stayed the order passed by the competent authority.

7. Considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner it is notices that the competent authority while rejecting his objection and passing the order of externment has considered the fact that there are three criminal cases lodged against the petitioner namely, Case Crime No. 43 of 2024, under Section 341, 504, 506 I.P.C., Case Crime No.286 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 341 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 68 of 2020, under Section 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. The allegations on the basis of which the first information report has been lodged against the petitioner pertain to fact that a liquor shop on being refused by the seller the petitioner had spoiled the law order situation and threaten the salesman to death. While in the other matter he had stopped the informant who was going on a motorcycle and assaulted him and also threatened.

8. After considering the facts the competent authority was of the view that the applicant is a person who is resorting to crime to sustain his family and has created a sense of fear in the entire society due to which proceedings under the Act of 1970 have been initiated him. From the order dated 21.08.2025 the appellate authority has also noticed the fact 3 CRLP No. 20673 of 2025 that from between 2022 to 2024 three criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner and accordingly has found that there was sufficient material before the appellate authority to initiate proceedings under the Act of 1970.

9. Considering the entire material on record this Court is of the view that there are allegations levelled against the petitioner from which it cannot be denied that a person who is repeatedly involved in such cases can be held guilty of spreading fear and terror among the society. This Court further find that once the petitioner has already approached the competent court challenging the order of competent court dated 21.08.2025 then against the same order a writ petition under Article 226/227 would not be maintainable as two parallel proceedings cannot be continue before two separate authorities and accordingly, his challenge to the order dated

31.07.2025 is rejected. With regard to the challenge the order dated

31.07.2025, we find that that there is no material adduced by the petitioner which may enable this Court for taking a different view which has not been taken by the appellate authority. Apart from the above, this Court find that substantial material exists on record for initiating proceedings under the Act of 1970.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not fine any good ground for interference nor any material has been produce as to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, no interference is requires and the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice suffice in case the appellate authority is directed to proceed and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. September 16, 2025 AS (Alok Mathur,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Auraiya in Case No. 691 of 2025 (State Vs. Pintu Yadav @ Anurag Singh), under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as well as order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Case No. 2688 of 2025 (Pintu Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 against the order dated 31.07.2025.

3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was served with a notice on 15.07.2025 under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970) stating that there are three criminal cases registered against the petitioner in addition to a beat information written by the local police on the basis of the aforesaid a reply was sought as to why the petitioner be not proceeded under the Act of 1970. The petitioner filed a response on 30.07.2025 opposing the said application and submitted that all the offences are minor in nature and he has been granted bail by the trial court about the said matters.

4. After considering the reply of the petitioner the District Magistrate concerned by means of the order dated 31.07.2025 found that there was 2 CRLP No. 20673 of 2025 substance material to indicate that the petitioner is spreading fear in the society and accordingly found that all the ingredients fulfilled under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970 and has extern the petitioner for a period of six month. Against the order dated 31.07.2025 the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. It is on his application for interim relief before the appellate authority the order dated

21.08.2025 has been passed rejecting his application for interim relief against which the present writ petition has been filed.

6. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that application for interim relief has been rejected in most illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and accordingly, the same deserves interference by this Court. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rahul Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.; 2024:AHC:197282 where against rejection of interim order this Court has interfered and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within two months and during the said period has stayed the order passed by the competent authority.

7. Considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner it is notices that the competent authority while rejecting his objection and passing the order of externment has considered the fact that there are three criminal cases lodged against the petitioner namely, Case Crime No. 43 of 2024, under Section 341, 504, 506 I.P.C., Case Crime No.286 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 341 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 68 of 2020, under Section 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. The allegations on the basis of which the first information report has been lodged against the petitioner pertain to fact that a liquor shop on being refused by the seller the petitioner had spoiled the law order situation and threaten the salesman to death. While in the other matter he had stopped the informant who was going on a motorcycle and assaulted him and also threatened.

8. After considering the facts the competent authority was of the view that the applicant is a person who is resorting to crime to sustain his family and has created a sense of fear in the entire society due to which proceedings under the Act of 1970 have been initiated him. From the order dated 21.08.2025 the appellate authority has also noticed the fact 3 CRLP No. 20673 of 2025 that from between 2022 to 2024 three criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner and accordingly has found that there was sufficient material before the appellate authority to initiate proceedings under the Act of 1970.

9. Considering the entire material on record this Court is of the view that there are allegations levelled against the petitioner from which it cannot be denied that a person who is repeatedly involved in such cases can be held guilty of spreading fear and terror among the society. This Court further find that once the petitioner has already approached the competent court challenging the order of competent court dated 21.08.2025 then against the same order a writ petition under Article 226/227 would not be maintainable as two parallel proceedings cannot be continue before two separate authorities and accordingly, his challenge to the order dated

31.07.2025 is rejected. With regard to the challenge the order dated

31.07.2025, we find that that there is no material adduced by the petitioner which may enable this Court for taking a different view which has not been taken by the appellate authority. Apart from the above, this Court find that substantial material exists on record for initiating proceedings under the Act of 1970.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not fine any good ground for interference nor any material has been produce as to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, no interference is requires and the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice suffice in case the appellate authority is directed to proceed and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. September 16, 2025 AS (Alok Mathur,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad