‘Can’t be called goonda with 2 criminal cases’: Allahabad High Court junks externment order against man

Justice Sandeep Jain

‘Irreparable damage’

The court noted that under the legislation the conviction is specifically required only in respect of certain offences under special enactments such as the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, the UP Excise Act, the Public Gambling Act, and the Arms Act.

It added that for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Act does not mandate prior conviction as a prerequisite for initiating proceedings.

The court observed that the Act does not prescribe any fixed number of offences to classify a person as a ‘Goonda’.

“It is further evident that the Act does not prescribe any fixed number of offences required to classify a person as a “goonda,” nor does it stipulate a specific time gap between offences for determining habituality,” the court said.

It, however, emphasised the Supreme Court’s ruling where it was held that for invoking the provisions of such preventive legislation, the person must be shown to be a habitual offender, and if offences are committed with a long time gap, the element of habituality may not be established.

The court noted that branding a person as a goonda based on one or two criminal cases causes irreparable damage to the reputation of that person and his family.

The court, therefore, quashed the orders challenged before it.

“Since in the instant case also, the petitioner has been branded as “goonda” on the basis of only two criminal cases registered against him, hence, the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1970 are unsustainable and liable to be quashed,” the court held while allowing the plea.

Background

• The case pertains to a challenge to an externment order passed against the petitioner based on two criminal cases registered against him in 2022 and 2023 at Khurja Nagar police station in Bulandshahr, involving offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
• The petitioner contended that the cases were falsely lodged due to personal enmity and are still pending without any conviction.
• Following proceedings under the goondas Act, authorities concluded that the petitioner was a habitual offender whose activities created fear in the locality and discouraged witnesses from coming forward.
• Taking note that charge sheets had been filed and cognizance taken in both cases, the petitioner was declared a “goonda” and externed for six months. His appeal against the order was dismissed, leading to the present writ petition challenging both orders.

What is the Goondas Act?

• The Act is a state-level law designed to control habitual offenders, criminals, and dangerous individuals to maintain public order. It allows the district administration to restrict a person’s movement, often banishing them from the district (externment), if they are considered a threat or create fear.
• Section 2(b) of the Act defines a ‘goonda’ as a person who habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including offences affecting the human body such as causing hurt or injury, use of criminal force, kidnapping, sexual offences, as well as offences against property, including criminal trespass, mischief, and cheating, etc.