Anil Chaudhary vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2700 of 2026
Anil Chaudhary
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Kumar, Shivendra Raj Singhal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
A.F.R.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order
of the Commissioner dated 17.12.2025, to the extent, the case has been remanded
back to the Additional District Magistrate Administration, District Aligarh for fresh
adjudication along with the further proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order of
the Commissioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under
Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 were initiated
against the petitioner by instituting Case No.2586 of 2024, Computerized
Case No.D202418020002586 (State vs. Anil Kumar), on the basis of only
two criminal cases i.e. Case Crime No.147 of 2021, under Sections 417,
420 I.P.C. and 6(2)(d) /9(1)/23 and 37 U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage
Act, 1976 and Case crime No.148 of 2021 under sections417,420
I.P.C. and 6(2)(d)/9(1)/23 and 37 U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act,
1976. Learned counsel submitted that besides the above criminal cases, no
other criminal case was taken into consideration by the State and the
Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh vide order dated
25.09.2024 concluded that the petitioner does not fall within the category
of Goonda defined under the Act, 1970, hence, a show cause notice dated
22.03.2024 issued to the petitioner was taken back and the proceedings
was closed. Learned counsel further submitted that the order dated
25.09.2024 was not challenged by filing appeal by the State.

CRLP No. 2700 of 2026
2
3. It was further submitted that again after a duration of about three
months on 17.12.2024, fresh proceedings on the basis of Case Crime
No.230 of 2021, under Section 420 I.P.C., Section 60(1) of U.P. Excise
Act, 1910, P.S. Gonda, District Aligarh, Case Crime No.232 of 2021,
under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, P.S. Gonda, District Aligarh, Case Crime No.269 of
2021, under Section 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 304 I.P.C. and
Section 60 (A) of U.P. Excise Act, P.S. Khair and Case Crime No.276 of
2021, under Section 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 60
(A) of U.P. Excise Act, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh were initiated against
the petitioner and by impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh, the petitioner
was externed for six months from the limits of District Aligarh. This order
was challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal being Case No.1782 of
2025, Computerized Case No.C202518000001782 (Anil Kumar vs. State
of U.P.), under Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 before
the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh, which was partly allowed
and it was concluded that the District Magistrate has passed contradictory
orders, as such, the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 was set aside but
the case was remanded back to the District Magistrate for deciding it
afresh on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
4. Learned counsel submitted that under the provisions of Section 6 of the
U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, there is no provision to remand the
matter by the appellate authority. The appellate authority can either
confirm the order, with or without modification or set it aside, and may,
pending disposal of the appeal, stay the operation of the order but it
cannot remand the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding it
afresh on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the report of the DCRB,
District Aligarh dated 05.03.2024, the petitioner has the criminal history
of following 19 cases:-
i. Case Crime No.220/2021 under Section 272,273,420,467,468,471 IPC and 60(A)
UP Excise Act, PS Akrabad, District Aligarh.
ii. Case Crime No.269/2021 under Section 272,273,304 IPC and 60(A) UP Excise

CRLP No. 2700 of 2026
3
Act, PS Khair, District Aligarh.
iii. Case Crime No.143/2021 under Section 272,273,304 IPC and 60(A) UP Excise
Act, PS Gabhana, District Aligarh.
iv. Case Crime No.147/2021 under Section 417,420 IPC, PS Gonda, District Aligarh.
v. Case Crime No.148/2021 under Section 417,420 IPC, PS Gonda, District Aligarh.
vi. Case Crime No.188/2021 under Section 272,273,304 IPC and 60(A) UP Excise
Act, PS Jawon, District Aligarh.
vii. Case Crime No.70/2021 under Section 272,273,304 IPC and 60(A) UP Excise Act,
PS Pisawa, District Aligarh.
viii. Case Crime No.276/2021 under Section 272,273 IPC and 60(A) UP Excise Act,
PS Khair, District Aligarh.
ix. Case Crime No.165/2021 under Section 272,273,304 IPC and 60(A) UP Excise
Act, PS Laudha, District Aligarh.
x. Case Crime No.370/2012 under Section 60 UP Excise Act, PS Gonda, District
Aligarh.
xi. Case Crime No.80/2009 under Section 60,62,63,64 UP Excise Act, Section 102/103
Trademark Act and Section 255,259,260,272,273,467,468,471,419,420 IPC, PS Iglas,
District Aligarh.
xii. Case Crime No.108/2009 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS Iglas, District
Aligarh.
xiii. Case Crime No.232/2021 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS Jawon, District
Aligarh.
xiv. Case Crime No.343/2021 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS Khair, District
Aligarh.
xv. Case Crime No.91/2021 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS Pisawa, District
Aligarh.
xvi. Case Crime No.232/2021 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS Gonda, District

CRLP No. 2700 of 2026
4
Aligarh.
xvii. Case Crime No.302/21 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS Akarabad, District
Aligarh.
xviii. Case Crime No.30/2021 under Section 420 IPC and 60(A) UP Excise Act, PS
Gonda, District Aligarh.
xix. Case Crime No.250/2021 under section 120B,195,506 IPC, PS Gabhana, District
Aligarh.
6. Learned counsel submitted that all the above cases relate to the year
2009, 2012 and 2021, prior and subsequent to it no criminal act has been
committed by the petitioner. He further submitted that in the first
proceeding initiated under the Act, 1970, only two criminal cases being
Case Crime No.147 of 2021 and 148 of 2021, Police Station Gonda,
District Aligarh were considered for initiating proceedings under Section
3/4 of the Act, 1970 whereas at that time also the petitioner was having a
criminal history of the above 19 cases as mentioned in the report of
DCRB, District Aligarh. Learned counsel further submitted that again the
second proceedings under the Act, 1970 were initiated on 17.12.2024
whereby only four cases namely Case Crime No.230 of 2021, 232 of 2021
both of Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh, Case Crime No.269 of
2021 and Case Crime No.276 of 2021 both of Police Station Khair,
District Aligarh were considered for initiating the proceedings under
Section 3/4 of the Act, 1970 against the petitioner and by order dated
01.11.2025, the petitioner was externed for a duration of six months from
the limits of District of Aligarh, which has been subsequently set aside by
the Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh by order dated 17.12.2025
but the matter has also been remanded back to the District Magistrate,
Aligarh for considering it afresh on merits after giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties.
7. Learned counsel submitted that it is apparent that the State has
selectively decided to take up cases against the petitioner and has only
mentioned two cases in the first round of litigation and only mentioned
four cases in the second round of litigation whereas the State was aware
of the criminal history of the accused whereby 19 criminal cases were

CRLP No. 2700 of 2026
5
pending against him till the year 2021. Learned counsel submitted that the
State cannot selectively decide to proceed against the petitioner by taking
few cases and leaving the other and by repeatedly initiating proceedings
against the petitioner under the Act, 1970, which only proves that the
petitioner was politically prosecuted for the alleged acts. He further
submitted that the petitioner has not been convicted in any case and he is
on bail in all the cases. With these submissions, it was prayed that the
order of remand is illegal and in view of this, the order of the appellate
authority setting aside the impugned order of the District Magistrate dated
01.11.2025 be sustained and accordingly, the writ petition be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that from the documents annexed
with the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner is having a long
criminal history and till the year 2021, 19 criminal cases for different
offences were pending against the petitioner, which is apparent from the
report of DCRB, District Aligarh.
9. Learned A.G.A. submitted that in view of the long criminal history of
the petitioner, it would be fair to assume that the petitioner is a Goonda,
who has already been externed for a duration of six months by the District
Magistrate, Aligarh by impugned order dated 01.11.2025. Learned
counsel could not dispute that under Section 6 of the Act, 1970, there is
no power to remand the case to the District Magistrate for deciding it
afresh on merits.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents submitted with the writ petition.
11. It is apparent from the report of DCRB, District Aligarh that 19
criminal cases for different offences were pending against the petitioner
till the year 2021 but only two cases being Case Crime No.147 of 2021
and 148 of 2021, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh were chosen to
initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3/4 of the Act,
1970, which were ultimately dropped by the Additional District
Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh, vide order dated 25.09.2024. It is
further apparent that again after only a gap of about three months on
17.12.2024, a second round of proceedings under the Act, 1970 were
initiated against the petitioner on the basis of only four cases being Case

CRLP No. 2700 of 2026
6
Crime No.230 of 2021, 232 of 2021, both registered at Police Station
Gonda, District Aligarh, Case Crime No.269 of 2021 and 276 of 2021,
both registered at Police Station Khair, District Aligarh. It is apparent that
all the 19 cases pending against the petitioner till the year 2021 were in
the knowledge of the State at the time of initiating first round of
proceedings under the Act, 1970 against the petitioner but 17 of them
were deliberately not taken into consideration at that time. It is further
evident that the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner Aligarh
Division, Aligarh has duly considered the above facts and vide impugned
order dated 17.12.2025, it has specifically recorded that on the basis of
same criminal cases, two contradictory orders could not have been passed
by the District Magistrate, Aligarh.
12. In view of this contradictory stand of the District Magistrate, the
appellate authority has set aside the impugned order of the District
Magistrate dated 01.11.2025 and remanded back the matter to him for
deciding it afresh on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties.
13. Section 6 of the Act, 1970 reads as under:-
6.Appeal:- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 3,section 4 or
section 5 may appeal to the Commissioner within fifteen days from the date of such
order.
(2) The appellant or his counsel shall not be entitled to inspect or to be informed of
any record which was not disclosed to him at the inquiry, if any, held under section 3.
(3) The Commissioner may either confirm the order, with or without modification, or
set it aside, and may, pending disposal of the appeal, stay the operation of the order
subject to such terms, if any, as he thinks fit.
14. It is apparent that Section 6 of the Act, 1970 only vests the appellate
authority the jurisdiction to either confirm the order, with or without
modification, or to set it aside but the appellate authority cannot remand
the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding it afresh on merits
under Section 3/4 of the Act, 1970.
15. It is very much apparent that the appellate authority has exceeded its
jurisdiction in remanding the matter back to the District Magistrate, since,

CRLP No. 2700 of 2026
7
no such power has been vested in it and only on this short technical
ground the appeal of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. The appellate
authority has deemed appropriate to quash the impugned order of District
Magistrate dated 01.11.2025, which is perfectly legal. It is beyond
comprehension, if the petitioner was having a criminal history of 19 cases
way back in the year 2021 why only 2 and 4 cases were considered for
initiating proceedings under the Act, 1970 against the petitioner. Nothing
had stopped the State from proceeding against the petitioner by taking all
the above 19 cases into consideration, but the State has not chosen to do
so.
16. It is further pertinent to mention here that after the year 2021, no
criminal history of the petitioner has been brought to the knowledge of
this Court. It is further apparent that the petitioner is on bail in all the
above mentioned cases and has not been convicted in any criminal case to
date. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner
Aligarh Division, Aligarh remanding the matter back to the District
Magistrate, Aligarh, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside but the
order of the appellate authority setting aside the impugned order dated
01.11.2025 is perfectly sustainable and is liable to be upheld.
17. In view of the above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner
deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, .
allowed
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the
Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh whereby the matter has been
remanded back to the District Magistrate, Aligarh is set aside and the
impugned order, whereby the order passed by the District
Magistrate,Aligarh dated 01.11.2025 has been set aside, is upheld.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
July 6, 2026
Jitendra
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad