High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the opposite party No. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the opposite party No. 2, as Petition. contained in Annexure No. this Writ 2 iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court have been passed without due application of mind as at first, it has not been considered that the notice sent to the petitioner was defective and all the proceedings, which have emerged out in pursuance of the said notice, are per se illegal and secondly, the nature of offence, which have been made the basis of passing impugned orders, are not such of character, where a person may be declared goonda in view of the definition provided under Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and thirdly, proper opportunity to defend himself has not been provided to the petitioner as at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was suffering from acute illness and was unable to remain present before the trial court and instead of making attempts to procure the presence of the petitioner/accused person, the trial court has disposed of the proceedings finally even in absence of the petitioner while there was no urgency, thus the petitioner has been deprived to defend himself properly as the point, which he might have argued before the trial court, was not taken care of by the trial court and thus the whole proceedings are vitiated and the impugned orders are required to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone four months externment in pursuance of the impugned orders.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the requirement is only of providing an opportunity of being heard to an accused person and if an accused is willingly not participating in the proceedings, the same may not be the ground to quash the said proceedings when it is evident on the record that the accused person is misusing the provision and is not willingly appear before the trial court thus no interference is required in the impugned orders.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the grievance of the petitioner, so far as the defect in issuance of notice is concerned, is not carrying any weight, therefore, I do not find any substance in his submission, which may require discussion at length as the full fledged trial has already taken place and the petitioner/accused person has participated in the same and he not only has participated in the trial but has also produced his witnesses, therefore, the defence that the notice was defective, is not available to him at this stage.

6. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner is concerned the same is about the order that has been passed without considering his defence as sufficient opportunity has not been given to him to show the weaknesses of the prosecution case as the order has been passed in his absence. In the considered opinion of this Court, this submission may be considered on the limited ground of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to address the trial court on the basis of the material which is already available on record.

7. Thus without commenting anything on the impugned orders, in the considered opinion of this Court, an opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to appear before the trial court only for the purpose of advancing submissions/argument on the existing material available on record.

8. Thus in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of in terms that the trial court i.e. Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Police Commissionerate, Lucknow shall fix a date only for submission of arguments by petitioner, on which date, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused person shall remain present before the trial court and shall advance submissions and after hearing counsel for the petitioner/accused person and State, the trial court shall pass afresh order keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence already available on record.

9. It is clarified that no opportunity shall be provided either to the State or to the petitioner/accused person to tender any fresh evidence and the fresh order shall be passed only on the basis of the material/evidence already available on record.

10. It is provided that if the petitioner shall not appear before the trial court on the date so fixed by the trial court, the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the trial court and the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the appellate court shall revive.

11. It is further provided that the trial court in its discretion may adjourn the case so as to accommodate the parties not beyond 15 days and in any case the proceedings shall be completed within one month from the date of providing a certified copy of this order to the trial court by the petitioner.

12. It is also provided that till the said proceedings are concluded, the impugned orders shall remain in abeyance and would be subject to final order passed by the trial court. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Anupam S/- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the opposite party No. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the opposite party No. 2, as Petition. contained in Annexure No. this Writ 2 iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court have been passed without due application of mind as at first, it has not been considered that the notice sent to the petitioner was defective and all the proceedings, which have emerged out in pursuance of the said notice, are per se illegal and secondly, the nature of offence, which have been made the basis of passing impugned orders, are not such of character, where a person may be declared goonda in view of the definition provided under Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and thirdly, proper opportunity to defend himself has not been provided to the petitioner as at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was suffering from acute illness and was unable to remain present before the trial court and instead of making attempts to procure the presence of the petitioner/accused person, the trial court has disposed of the proceedings finally even in absence of the petitioner while there was no urgency, thus the petitioner has been deprived to defend himself properly as the point, which he might have argued before the trial court, was not taken care of by the trial court and thus the whole proceedings are vitiated and the impugned orders are required to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone four months externment in pursuance of the impugned orders.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the requirement is only of providing an opportunity of being heard to an accused person and if an accused is willingly not participating in the proceedings, the same may not be the ground to quash the said proceedings when it is evident on the record that the accused person is misusing the provision and is not willingly appear before the trial court thus no interference is required in the impugned orders.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the grievance of the petitioner, so far as the defect in issuance of notice is concerned, is not carrying any weight, therefore, I do not find any substance in his submission, which may require discussion at length as the full fledged trial has already taken place and the petitioner/accused person has participated in the same and he not only has participated in the trial but has also produced his witnesses, therefore, the defence that the notice was defective, is not available to him at this stage.

6. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner is concerned the same is about the order that has been passed without considering his defence as sufficient opportunity has not been given to him to show the weaknesses of the prosecution case as the order has been passed in his absence. In the considered opinion of this Court, this submission may be considered on the limited ground of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to address the trial court on the basis of the material which is already available on record.

7. Thus without commenting anything on the impugned orders, in the considered opinion of this Court, an opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to appear before the trial court only for the purpose of advancing submissions/argument on the existing material available on record.

8. Thus in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of in terms that the trial court i.e. Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Police Commissionerate, Lucknow shall fix a date only for submission of arguments by petitioner, on which date, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused person shall remain present before the trial court and shall advance submissions and after hearing counsel for the petitioner/accused person and State, the trial court shall pass afresh order keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence already available on record.

9. It is clarified that no opportunity shall be provided either to the State or to the petitioner/accused person to tender any fresh evidence and the fresh order shall be passed only on the basis of the material/evidence already available on record.

10. It is provided that if the petitioner shall not appear before the trial court on the date so fixed by the trial court, the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the trial court and the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the appellate court shall revive.

11. It is further provided that the trial court in its discretion may adjourn the case so as to accommodate the parties not beyond 15 days and in any case the proceedings shall be completed within one month from the date of providing a certified copy of this order to the trial court by the petitioner.

12. It is also provided that till the said proceedings are concluded, the impugned orders shall remain in abeyance and would be subject to final order passed by the trial court. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Anupam S/- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench