Sunil Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

"1. Heard Sri Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned AGA for the State- opposite parties no.1 and 2.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Notice No. D2025046800004153 issued by learned court of Additional District Magistrate (Land Revenue) Sultanpur under section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 in Case title: state vs Sunil Verma. Copy of the Notice dated

28.07.2025 is marked herewith and annexed as ANNEXURE NO. PI to this Petition."

3. Sri Vishen has submitted that the impugned show cause notice has been issued absolutely without application of mind. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Item No. 1 of the show cause notice, which says that against the petitioner one F.I.R. bearing no. 16 of 2023 under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. was lodged wherein the charge sheet dated 16.7.2023 has been filed before the court. Annexure No. 2 is an F.I.R. No. 16 of 2023 under Sections 509, 506, 504 I.P.C. wherein there is only one accused namely Uttam Yadav and charge-sheet has also been filed against the said accused person. 4. On being asked, Sri Vishen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. as to whether final order has been passed by competent authority or not, though learned counsels are not aware about this fact, therefore, list/put up on 17.11.2025 as fresh in the list of fresh cases to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. to seek specific instruction. "

2. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel has informed that the criminal case so indicated in the 2 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025 impugned order i.e. case crime no. 16 of 2023 under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. although the present petitioner is an accused, however, the police station has been erroneously mentioned as Jaisighpur. Sri Vipul Kumar Singh has further submitted that the aforesaid fact must have been indicated in the show cause notice.

3. So far as the other allegations against the petitioner are concerned as indicated from paragraph nos. 2 to 4 of the impugned show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16202 of 2019 (Pavan @ Pavan Singhal Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein considering the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court has painstakingly and extensively traced down the spirit and merit of Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1970") and has also dealt as to the time when a show cause notice can be challenged before this Court. The said Court after referring to three judgments of this Court in (i) Harsh Narain @ Harshu Vs. District Magistrate Allahabad & Another; 1972 SCC Online All 146, (ii) Full Bench Judgement- Ramji Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1981 SCC Online All 305 and (iii) Full Bench Judgement- Bhim Sain Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. through D.M. Mahamaya Nagar; 1999 SCC Online All 1403, arrived at an irresistible conclusion that a valid notice under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970 must carry "general nature of material allegations" and the show cause notice is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The concluding paragraph nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "31. The inevitable conclusion from the consistent position of the law regarding the requirements of a valid notice under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970 is, thus, well settled, at least since Harsh Narain was decided and has not undergone any change. The law, as laid down in Ramji Pandey and otherwise consistent, is that in order to satisfy this statutory requirement about the notice carrying "general nature of material allegations" postulated under Section 3(1), there has to be some mention of what the person proposed to be proceeded with against has done, relevant to form an opinion under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) and sub-Section (1) of Section 3. It is also beyond doubt that post mention of the fact that the person put under notice has indulged in acts or done something which attracts Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub- Section (1) of Section 3, it is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of informing that person about the "general nature of material allegations" against him, that a list of case crimes or the first information reports registered against him be 3 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025 mentioned. No doubt, particulars of the allegations are not required to be detailed in a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970, such as the date, time and place of a specific act, as in the case of a charge, but some substance of it must be mentioned. If a person is sought to be proceeded with against on ground that he is a goonda under Clause (a) of Section 3(1), the general nature of material allegations may, for instance, indicate the number of acts that he has habitually committed, abetted or attempted, that constitute commission, attempt or abetment of an offence punishable under Section 153-B of the Penal Code, over a specified period of time, in a particular locality or part of the town. The date, time and place of occurrence of each of those repeated acts, that constitute the habitual commission of that offence, may not be mentioned in the fashion of a charge; but it would be no compliance with the quintessence of Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970, if a list of the case crimes alone were to be indicated in the notice as the raison de etre for the invocation of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3. The notice would be vitiated. For the further removal of any doubt, that the District Magistrates may harbour, this Court is minded to say that a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act must say something about the act, which the person put under notice has done, rather than listing the cases registered against him. If the mandated course is followed, the notice would certainly be valid.

32. Now, in the present case, a perusal of the notice shows that after a reference to Clauses (a), (b) and (c), all that is said by the District Magistrate in the notice under Section 3(1) is that four crimes are registered against the petitioner. Details of these have already been extracted hereinabove. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the hearing, that the beat report and the N.C.R. are one and the same matter, and not two different cases. Learned A.G.A. has not disputed the position for a fact.

33. Be that as it may, what is relevant is that nothing more than mention of the crime numbers is all that one finds, instead of the general nature of material allegations. A list of case crimes/first information reports/N.C.Rs. registered against the petitioner does not satisfy the test of a valid notice under Section 3(1) carrying the "general nature of material allegations". Truly, the notice, on the foundation of which the orders impugned have been made, is strictly in the teeth of the law laid down consistently by this Court; particularly, the Full Bench decision in Ramji Pandey and reiterated in Bhim Sain Tyagi. A notice under Section 3(1) of the kind that is the foundation of proceedings here has been held in Bhim Sain Tyagi and in earlier decisions also, to violate the minimum guarantee of the opportunity that the Statute envisages for a person proceeded with against under the Act of 1970. Thus, in this case, the impugned orders, founded as they are, on a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, stand vitiated by defects that go to the root of the matter. 34. In the result, this petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad, in Case No. 00049 of 2018, State of U.P. v. Pavan, under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970 and the order dated 23.05.2019 passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in Case No. 00719 of 2019, Pavan Singhal v. State, under Section 6 of the Act of 1970, are hereby 4 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025 quashed".

4. If the present case is tested on the basis of the settled proposition of law, which has been considered by this Court in the case of Pavan @ Pavan Singhal (Supra), it would be clear that the Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur has not complied with the provision of Section 3 (1) of the the Act, 1970.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a similar order has been passed by this Court in couple of cases issuing specific direction following the aforesaid judgments of Full Bench of Three Judges in Ramji Pandey (Supra) and Full Bench of Five Judges in Bhim Sain Tyagi (Supra) but the authorities are not following such directions in an utter violation of the directions being issued by this Court for which stricture may be issued against them.

6. From the perusal of the Item Nos. 1 to 4 of the impugned show cause notice dated 28.7.2025, it is clear that the general nature of material allegations against the petitioner is conspicuously missing and as such the said show cause notice cannot be termed as a valid notice in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970. Even the factum of subjective satisfaction before issuing show cause notice is missing and prima facie it appears that the impugned notice has been issued in a mechanical exercise and without application of mind by the competent authority.

7. Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel has submitted that though the impugned show cause notice is lacking the compliance of Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970 but the authority may be given an opportunity to issue a fresh direction making compliance of the provisions of the Act, 1970.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the impugned show cause notice issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Land and Revenue), Sultanpur does not carry the general nature of material allegations so postulated under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970, therefore, the aforesaid show cause notice has not only been issued without application of mind but it may be considered as without jurisdiction, so the same is hereby set-aside/quashed at the admission stage. 5 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025

9. However, it is always open for the competent authority to issue appropriate show cause notice against the petitioner, if it is so required by following the due procedure of law.

10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

11. No order as to costs. . (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November 17 , 2025 Anuj Singh ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard Sri Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned AGA for the State- opposite parties no.1 and 2.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Notice No. D2025046800004153 issued by learned court of Additional District Magistrate (Land Revenue) Sultanpur under section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 in Case title: state vs Sunil Verma. Copy of the Notice dated

28.07.2025 is marked herewith and annexed as ANNEXURE NO. PI to this Petition."

3. Sri Vishen has submitted that the impugned show cause notice has been issued absolutely without application of mind. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Item No. 1 of the show cause notice, which says that against the petitioner one F.I.R. bearing no. 16 of 2023 under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. was lodged wherein the charge sheet dated 16.7.2023 has been filed before the court. Annexure No. 2 is an F.I.R. No. 16 of 2023 under Sections 509, 506, 504 I.P.C. wherein there is only one accused namely Uttam Yadav and charge-sheet has also been filed against the said accused person. 4. On being asked, Sri Vishen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. as to whether final order has been passed by competent authority or not, though learned counsels are not aware about this fact, therefore, list/put up on 17.11.2025 as fresh in the list of fresh cases to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. to seek specific instruction. "

2. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel has informed that the criminal case so indicated in the 2 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025 impugned order i.e. case crime no. 16 of 2023 under Section 419, 420 I.P.C. although the present petitioner is an accused, however, the police station has been erroneously mentioned as Jaisighpur. Sri Vipul Kumar Singh has further submitted that the aforesaid fact must have been indicated in the show cause notice.

3. So far as the other allegations against the petitioner are concerned as indicated from paragraph nos. 2 to 4 of the impugned show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 15.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16202 of 2019 (Pavan @ Pavan Singhal Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein considering the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court has painstakingly and extensively traced down the spirit and merit of Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1970") and has also dealt as to the time when a show cause notice can be challenged before this Court. The said Court after referring to three judgments of this Court in (i) Harsh Narain @ Harshu Vs. District Magistrate Allahabad & Another; 1972 SCC Online All 146, (ii) Full Bench Judgement- Ramji Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1981 SCC Online All 305 and (iii) Full Bench Judgement- Bhim Sain Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. through D.M. Mahamaya Nagar; 1999 SCC Online All 1403, arrived at an irresistible conclusion that a valid notice under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970 must carry "general nature of material allegations" and the show cause notice is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The concluding paragraph nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "31. The inevitable conclusion from the consistent position of the law regarding the requirements of a valid notice under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970 is, thus, well settled, at least since Harsh Narain was decided and has not undergone any change. The law, as laid down in Ramji Pandey and otherwise consistent, is that in order to satisfy this statutory requirement about the notice carrying "general nature of material allegations" postulated under Section 3(1), there has to be some mention of what the person proposed to be proceeded with against has done, relevant to form an opinion under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) and sub-Section (1) of Section 3. It is also beyond doubt that post mention of the fact that the person put under notice has indulged in acts or done something which attracts Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub- Section (1) of Section 3, it is not sufficient compliance with the requirement of informing that person about the "general nature of material allegations" against him, that a list of case crimes or the first information reports registered against him be 3 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025 mentioned. No doubt, particulars of the allegations are not required to be detailed in a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970, such as the date, time and place of a specific act, as in the case of a charge, but some substance of it must be mentioned. If a person is sought to be proceeded with against on ground that he is a goonda under Clause (a) of Section 3(1), the general nature of material allegations may, for instance, indicate the number of acts that he has habitually committed, abetted or attempted, that constitute commission, attempt or abetment of an offence punishable under Section 153-B of the Penal Code, over a specified period of time, in a particular locality or part of the town. The date, time and place of occurrence of each of those repeated acts, that constitute the habitual commission of that offence, may not be mentioned in the fashion of a charge; but it would be no compliance with the quintessence of Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970, if a list of the case crimes alone were to be indicated in the notice as the raison de etre for the invocation of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3. The notice would be vitiated. For the further removal of any doubt, that the District Magistrates may harbour, this Court is minded to say that a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act must say something about the act, which the person put under notice has done, rather than listing the cases registered against him. If the mandated course is followed, the notice would certainly be valid.

32. Now, in the present case, a perusal of the notice shows that after a reference to Clauses (a), (b) and (c), all that is said by the District Magistrate in the notice under Section 3(1) is that four crimes are registered against the petitioner. Details of these have already been extracted hereinabove. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the hearing, that the beat report and the N.C.R. are one and the same matter, and not two different cases. Learned A.G.A. has not disputed the position for a fact.

33. Be that as it may, what is relevant is that nothing more than mention of the crime numbers is all that one finds, instead of the general nature of material allegations. A list of case crimes/first information reports/N.C.Rs. registered against the petitioner does not satisfy the test of a valid notice under Section 3(1) carrying the "general nature of material allegations". Truly, the notice, on the foundation of which the orders impugned have been made, is strictly in the teeth of the law laid down consistently by this Court; particularly, the Full Bench decision in Ramji Pandey and reiterated in Bhim Sain Tyagi. A notice under Section 3(1) of the kind that is the foundation of proceedings here has been held in Bhim Sain Tyagi and in earlier decisions also, to violate the minimum guarantee of the opportunity that the Statute envisages for a person proceeded with against under the Act of 1970. Thus, in this case, the impugned orders, founded as they are, on a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, stand vitiated by defects that go to the root of the matter. 34. In the result, this petition succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad, in Case No. 00049 of 2018, State of U.P. v. Pavan, under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970 and the order dated 23.05.2019 passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in Case No. 00719 of 2019, Pavan Singhal v. State, under Section 6 of the Act of 1970, are hereby 4 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025 quashed".

4. If the present case is tested on the basis of the settled proposition of law, which has been considered by this Court in the case of Pavan @ Pavan Singhal (Supra), it would be clear that the Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur has not complied with the provision of Section 3 (1) of the the Act, 1970.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a similar order has been passed by this Court in couple of cases issuing specific direction following the aforesaid judgments of Full Bench of Three Judges in Ramji Pandey (Supra) and Full Bench of Five Judges in Bhim Sain Tyagi (Supra) but the authorities are not following such directions in an utter violation of the directions being issued by this Court for which stricture may be issued against them.

6. From the perusal of the Item Nos. 1 to 4 of the impugned show cause notice dated 28.7.2025, it is clear that the general nature of material allegations against the petitioner is conspicuously missing and as such the said show cause notice cannot be termed as a valid notice in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970. Even the factum of subjective satisfaction before issuing show cause notice is missing and prima facie it appears that the impugned notice has been issued in a mechanical exercise and without application of mind by the competent authority.

7. Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel has submitted that though the impugned show cause notice is lacking the compliance of Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970 but the authority may be given an opportunity to issue a fresh direction making compliance of the provisions of the Act, 1970.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the impugned show cause notice issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Land and Revenue), Sultanpur does not carry the general nature of material allegations so postulated under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1970, therefore, the aforesaid show cause notice has not only been issued without application of mind but it may be considered as without jurisdiction, so the same is hereby set-aside/quashed at the admission stage. 5 CRLP No. 9947 of 2025

9. However, it is always open for the competent authority to issue appropriate show cause notice against the petitioner, if it is so required by following the due procedure of law.

10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

11. No order as to costs. . (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) November 17 , 2025 Anuj Singh ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench