Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mehboob Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:18153) on 17 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:18153]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1441/2025
Mehboob Khan S/o Rane Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Outside Badi Pol, P.s. Kotwali, District Jalore (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Superintendent Of Police, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
3. Additional District Magistrate, Jalore.
4. Station House Officer (Sho), P.s. Kotwali, District Jalore,
Rajasthan.
5. The Station House Officer (Sho), P.s. Sivana, District
Balotra.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Hussain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/04/2026
1. The instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India r/w Section 528 has been preferred by the
petitioner challenging the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the
learned Additional District Magistrate, Jalore whereby he has been
declared a “Goonda” under Section 2(B) of the Rajasthan Control
of Goondas Act, 1975 and has been expelled from the territorial
limits of the District Jalore under Section 3 of the said Act for a
period of 1 month.
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:50:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:57:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18153] (2 of 7) [CRLW-1441/2025]
2. After perusing the material available on record, it is
necessary to first examine the provisions of the Goondas Act. It is
important to understand who can be considered or called a
‘Goonda’ under the Act. For ready reference, the definition of
‘Goonda’ as provided under Section 2(b) of the Goondas Act is
reproduced below:-
“(b) “Goonda” means a person who :-
(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a
gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or
abets the commission of, offences, punishable under
Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII or the
Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act XLV of 1860) or under
Sections 290 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code,1860; or
(ii) has been convicted under the Suppression of
immoral Traffic in Women and Girls [Act, 1956] (Act
No. 104 of 1956); or
(iii) has been convicted not less twice under the
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950(Rajasthan Act No. 11 of
1950); or
(iv) has been convicted not less than twice under the
Opium Act, 1878 (Cental Act No. 1 of 1878); or
(v) has been convicted not less than twice under
Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (Rajasthan
Ordinance No. 48 of 1949); or
(vi) has been found habitual passing indecent remarks
to or teasing women or girls; or
(vii) has been found habitual in intimidation of law
abiding people by acts of voilence or by show of force;
or
(viii) is habituated to commit affray or breach of peace,
riot, or who is habituated to make forcible collection of
subscription or threatening people for illegal pecuniary
gain for himself or for others, or who is habituated to
cause alarm danger, or harm to persons or property.
Explanation–The words ‘habitual’ or ‘habituated’
wherever used in relation to a person in this clause
means a person, who during a period within six months
immediately preceding the commencement of an action
under Section 3, has been found on not less than three
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:50:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:57:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18153] (3 of 7) [CRLW-1441/2025]
occassions to have committed the offences or acts, as
the case may be, referred to in sub-clauses (i), (vi) or
(viii).”
A bare perusal of the provision makes it evident that a
person can be considered a “Goonda” if he/she fall under any of
the sub-clauses mentioned above.
5. Now moving on to the externment of Goondas and how an
order of externment can be passed as mentioned in the Goondas
Act. For ease of reference, Section 3 of the Goondas Act is
reproduced herein below:-
“3. Externment etc. of Goondas
(1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate:
a) that any person is goonda; and
(b) (i) that his movements or acts in the district or any
part thereof are causing, or are calculated to cause alarm
danger or harm to persons or property; or
(ii) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
he is engaged or about to engage, in the district or any
part thereof, in the commission or abetment of any
offence or act specified in sub-clause (i) to (viii) of clause
(b) of Section 2; and
(c) that witness are not willing to come forward to give
evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their
part as regards the safety of their person or property; the
District Magistrate shall be notice in writing inform him of
the general nature of the material allegations against him
in respect of above clause (a), (b) and (c) and give him a
reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation
regarding them.
(2) The person against whom an order under this section is
proposed to be made shall have a right to consult and be
defended by a counsel of his choice and shall be given a
reasonable opportunity of examining himself, if he so desires,(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:50:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:57:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18153] (4 of 7) [CRLW-1441/2025]and also of examining any other witnesses or to produce any
relevant document that he may wish to produce in support of
his explanation, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing,
the District Magistrate is of opinion that the request is made
for the purpose of vexation or delay.
(3) Thereupon the District Magistrate on being satisfied that
the conditions specified in clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-
section (1) exist, may be order in writing
(a) direct him to remove himself outside the district, or
part, as the case may be, such route, if any, and within
such time as may be specified in the order, and to desist-
from entering the district or the specified part thereof
until the expiry of such period not exceeding six months
as may be specified in the order.
(b) (i) require such person to notify his movements, or to
report himself, or to do both, in such manner, at such
time and to such authority or person as may be specified
in the order,
(ii) prohibit or restrict possession or use by him of any
such article as may be specified in the order;
(iii) direct him otherwise to conduct himself in such
manner as may be specified in the order; until the
expiration of such period, not exceeding six months as
may be specified in the order.”
6. As per Section 3 of the Goondas Act, an order of externment
etc. of a Goonda can be passed by a District Magistrate
whereunder it is brought before him that all the three conditions
as mentioned under the provision are fulfilled which are that a
person is a “Goonda” as provided under Section 2(b) of the
Goondas Act and that his movements or acts in the district or any
part thereof are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger
or harm to persons or property or that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is engaged or about to engage, in
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:50:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:57:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18153] (5 of 7) [CRLW-1441/2025]
the district or any part thereof in commission or abetement of any
offence or act specified in sub-clauses (i) to (viii) of clause (b) of
Section 2 of the Goondas Act and lastly, but most importantly, the
District Magistrate is also required to be satisfied that the
witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against
him perhaps due to apprehension of their safety or their property
or due to fear of his infamy or involvement in nefarious activities.
7. A simple glimpse over the provision above makes it
abundantly clear that in Clause (i) of Section 3 of the Goondas
Act, incorporates three contingencies denoted as (a), (b) and (c).
The first condition pertains to satisfaction that the person is a
“Goonda”, and the use of word “and” is incorporated after this
clause indicates that not only clause (a) but also clause (b) and
(c) are required to be satisfied before passing an order of
externment, so, there is no need to further discuss the matter
because here in this case there is no whisper about clause (b) and
(c) of Section 3 (1) of the Goondas Act and the learned DCP has
passed the order under challenge, simply based on one finding
that the petitioner is a “Goonda”.
8. A plain reading of Section 3 of the Goondas Act makes it
abundantly clear that before passing an order of externment of
goondas, it is imperative upon the District Magistrate to satisfy
itself with regard to the facts mentioned in clause (b) and (c) also.
Simply because a person is held as “Goonda”, an order of ousting
him from a particular area cannot be passed until the other
conditions enumerated in Clause (b) & (c) of Section 3 (1) of the
Goondas Act are satisfied. Since, there is no satisfaction with
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:50:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:57:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18153] (6 of 7) [CRLW-1441/2025]
regard to Clause (b) & (c) of Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act,
therefore, the order under challenge is bad in eyes of law,
therefore, for this simple reason the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
9. A perusal of the order under challenge revealing that the
learned District Magistrate has passed an order under Section 3 of
the Goondas Act simply on the ground of his conviction on six
occasions under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance,
however, he failed to notice the legal impediment that mere
designation of a person is “Goonda” is not sufficient to pass an
order of externment from the District or any part thereof. There
must be certain conditions which are associated with the fact of
his being a Goonda and there should be a further satisfaction to
this effect that the movement of the accused in the area causing
alarm, danger or harm to any person and it requires a further
satisfaction based on cogent material that there are reasonable
grounds for believing his engagement in relation to commission of
an offence under sub-clauses (i) to (viii) of clause (b) of section 2
of the Goondas Act. Immediately before passing an order of
externment, the learned District Magistrate is required to further
satisfy itself to the fact that the witnesses are not willing to come
forward to give evidence against him because of his infamy or fear
or threat. Thus, it is imperative upon the learned District
Magistrate to take place on record some strong material just to
satisfy the aspersion that witnesses are not coming forward
against him because he is a dangerous person or giving evidence
against him may led them in trouble. Dissatisfaction should not be
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:50:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:57:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18153] (7 of 7) [CRLW-1441/2025]
based on bald or vague statement averred in the criminal
complaint rather taking evidence in this regard is incumbent upon
the learned District Magistrate before passing an order of
externment.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court deems it
appropriate to allow this writ petition and is hereby allowed. The
order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District
Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Case No.02/2012 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(FARJAND ALI),J
25-divya/-
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:50:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 03:57:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
