The Allahabad High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against Abhishek Tyagi under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, holding that registration of only two criminal cases, particularly when separated by a substantial time gap, was not sufficient to establish habitual involvement in offences.
Justice Sandeep Jain delivered the judgment on September 10, 2026, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2026. The Court also awarded ₹50,000 as damages to Tyagi for the suffering caused by the declaration against him.
Background of the Case
Proceedings under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act were initiated against Abhishek Tyagi on the basis of two criminal cases registered at Teela Mod Police Station in Ghaziabad.
The first case, Case Crime No. 326 of 2022, was registered under Sections 323, 352, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The second, Case Crime No. 174 of 2025, invoked Sections 109(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
On September 18, 2025, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, directed Tyagi to reside at his permanent address and mark his attendance at the concerned police station on every second and fourth Saturday for six months. His appeal against the order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, on December 10, 2025.
Court’s Observation
Justice Sandeep Jain relied on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court concerning the meaning of the word “habitually” under the Goondas Act. The Court noted that habitual conduct requires repeated and persistent acts, rather than isolated incidents.
The judgment referred to the principle that one or two criminal cases cannot, by themselves, establish that a person is habitually involved in the commission of offences.
The Court further noted that there was a three-year gap between the two cases concerning Tyagi.
"It is well settled that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a 'Goonda'. Such punitive action on the part of the State causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such person and his family. "
The Court also referred to its earlier decisions emphasising that the Goondas Act is preventive in nature and must be applied carefully, with a clear connection between the alleged conduct and its impact on public order.
Decision
The High Court allowed Abhishek Tyagi’s writ petition and quashed the orders dated September 18, 2025 and December 10, 2025, along with the proceedings initiated against him under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
The Court additionally awarded ₹50,000 in damages for the suffering and agony caused to Tyagi by being declared a “Goonda”.
It directed that the amount be paid within one month and observed that the State could recover the damages from the salaries of the concerned bureaucrats.
Case Details
- Case Title: Abhishek Tyagi v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Dwara Grah Sachiv And 3 Others
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Sandeep Jain
- Decision Date: September 10, 2026
