Bombay High Court
Vitthal Punjahari Jadhav vs The Divisional Commissioner Nashik … on 5 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:6291
(1) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1697 OF 2024
Vitthal Punjahari Jadhav,
Age : 28 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o. Taklibhan, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER
V/s.
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur,
Tq.Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Externing Authority i.e.
The Superintendent of Police,
Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. The Police Inspector,
Taluka Police Station Shrirampur,
Tq.Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. Y.G. Birajdar h/f. Sachin S. Deshmukh & Majit S. Shaikh,
Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Naik, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4
.....
CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 05.03.2025
JUDGMENT:
–
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both
sides, heard finally.
(2) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
2. The Petitioner, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and takes exception to the order dated
29.07.2024, passed by the Respondent No.1 Divisional Commissioner, Nashik,
in Externment Appeal No.68 of 2024 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, thereby upholding the order of externment passed by the
Respondent No.2 on 01.03.2024, whereby the Petitioner has been externed
from the entire Taluka of Shrirampur, Rahuri, Newasa and Rahata of District
Ahmednagar for a period of one year.
3. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the Petitioner was
served with the notice dated 05.12.2022 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, issued by the Respondent No.2 and thereby called upon him to
submit the cause as to why he should not be externed from the entire
Ahmednagar District for a period of two years because of registration of
following crimes which are as under:
Sr. Police Station Crime Nos. & Date of Present position
No. Sections registration of
Crimes
1. Shrirampur I-315/2019 u/s. 307, 353, Investigation in
Taluka Police 332, 323, 504, 506 of IPC & progress
Station u/s. 4/25 of Arms Act & u/s.
37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act
2. Shrirampur 316/2019 u/s. 307, 327, 452, Trial pending /
Taluka Police 323, 427, 504, 506 of IPC & sub-judice
Station u/s. 4/25 of the Arms Act &
u/s. 37(1), 135 of
Maharashtra Police Act &
(3) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
u/s.3(2) (va) of SC & ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act
3. Shrirampur 99/2020 u/s. 506, 188, 144, Trial pending /
Taluka Police of IPC and u/s. 4/26 of the sub-judice
Station Arms Act
4. Shrirampur 77/2022 u/s. 324, 323, 504, Trial pending /
Taluka Police 506 of IPC sub-judice
Station
5. Shrirampur 281/2023 u/s. 384, 427, 323, Trial pending /
Taluka Police 506 r/w S.34 of IPC sub-judice
Station
Prohibitory action
1. Shrirampur Chapter Case No.05/2022 On 21.03.2022, the Petitioner had
City Police u/s. 110 (a) (e) (g) of Cr.P.C. furnished a bond ensuring that he
Station will maintain peace for a period
of two years
4. On 27.03.2023, the Petitioner submitted his reply and claimed that
he is a social worker and agitated for grievances of the general public. He helps
the poor and needy people to protect their rights but due to political rivalry the
opposite group out of jealousy of his popularity in the society, hence, false
crimes registered against him. Therefore, the Police Authority falsely implicated
him in criminal cases. He is enlarged on bail in all the crimes described in the
above tabular form. Therefore, proposed action of his externment from the
entire Taluka of Shrirampur, Rahuri, Newasa and Rahata of District
Ahmednagar is illegal and bad in law.
5. On 01.03.2024, the Respondent No.2 passed an order and thereby
externed the Petitioner from entire Taluka of Shrirampur, Rahuri, Newasa and
(4) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
Rahata of District Ahmednagar for a period of one year though the externing
authority did not assign satisfactory reasons about causing harm, alarm and
danger to the life and property of the people in the said areas.
6. Being aggrieved by said order dated 01.03.2024, the Petitioner
preferred the Appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act before the
Respondent No.1, Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. On 29.07.2024, the
Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order and affirmed the order of
externment passed by the Respondent No.2 on 01.03.2024.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner canvassed that,
both the Respondent/Authorities have failed to appreciate material available on
record in a proper perspective manner and arrived at an erroneous finding.
The Petitioner is a social activist and is always helpful to the poor and needy
people and agitates for their grievances. Therefore, the Petitioner’s political
rivals group made false allegations and implicated the Petitioner in false crimes.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further canvassed
that, the order of Externing Authority is based upon such material as is not
sufficient to record a satisfaction under Section 55 & 56 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951. It is submitted that the material relied upon by the
Respondent/ Authorities is not sufficient to satisfy ingredients to invoke the
provisions of Section 55 & 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 because
(5) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
trials of four Crimes are sub-judice and investigation in one crime is under
progress as per show cause notice. The offences in which the Petitioner is
shown involved are not of serious nature and do not fall within the meaning of
gangs and bodies of persons stated in the notice. Therefore, considering the
registration of stale crimes and the fact that the Petitioner was released on bail
in all these cases, there is no necessity to extern the Petitioner from entire
Taluka of Shrirampur, Rahuri, Newasa and Rahata of District Ahmednagar for a
period of one year without giving elaborate reasons. Therefore, prayed for
quashing and setting aside the orders dated 01.03.2024 and 29.07.2024 passed
by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2-Authorities. In support of these submissions the
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad
Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR Online 2024 Bom. 84.
9. Per contra, the learned APP canvassed that, there is no infirmity in
the order of externment. The Respondent No.2- Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Shrirampur submitted a proposal for the externment of the Petitioner from the
entire Ahmednagar District for a period of two years. The Respondent No.4 was
appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Respondent No.4 issued notices dated
16.09.2022, 27.09.2022, 07.10.2022 and 23.09.2023 to the Petitioner.
Thereafter, the Respondent No.4 submitted his report dated 28.11.2022 with
the Respondent No.2/SDM and Respondent No.2/SDM recommended
externment of the Petitioner from entire Ahmednagar district for a period of
(6) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
two years. The Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No.2/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Shrirampur and submitted his written statement on 27.02.2023.
The Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 01.02.2024 after providing
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and externed the Petitioner from entire
Taluka of Shrirampur, Rahuri, Newasa and Rahata of District Ahmednagar for a
period of one year.
10. The learned APP further submitted that all five crimes registered
against the Petitioner are of serious nature. The Petitioner has criminal
antecedents as he has indulged in criminal activities and is a habitual offender
for committing serious offences such as attempt to commit murder, giving
threats to law abiding and peace loving citizens of the locality, extortion,
causing grievous hurt and committing mischief against property.
11. The learned APP further canvassed that, on 13.08.2019 a Crime
No.315/2019 registered against the Petitioner for the offences u/s 307, 353,
332, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and u/s. 4/25 of the Arms and
u/s. 38(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act. In the said crime, the petitioner
was found while formation of unlawful assembly in village Taklibhan with
wooden sticks & sword and the mob attempted to kill the police officer, when
he was discharging his official duty. The Petitioner has played an active role in
commission of said offence against a Police officer. The Petitioner has again
committed the crime by forming an unlawful assembly by entering into the
(7) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
shop of one Avinash Kamble and forcibly snatched cash from the drawer of the
table at the point of sword and caused hurt to the family members of the
victim. So also, the Petitioner issued life threats to the victim and his family and
abused them based on caste. Another Crime No. 99/2020 is registered against
the Petitioner for issuance of threats to kill one villager in public place.
Another Crime No.77/2022, is registered against the Petitioner and his
associates for assaulting the Informant when he was sleeping and caused
grievous hurt and issued life threat. Though preventive action was initiated
against the Petitioner under Case No.05/2022 u/s. 110 of the Cr.P.C., but
despite preventive action, the Petitioner did not desist from committing
dangerous activities. The citizens residing within the jurisdiction of Shrirampur
and adjoining areas remain under constant fear and terror of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner’s activities have become hazardous and prejudicial for maintaining
law and order in and around Shrirampur.
12. The learned APP further canvassed that, the illegal activities of the
Petitioner are showing ascending order and taking into consideration the
objective materials produced on record, the Respondent No.2/SDM,
Shrirampur recorded his subjective satisfaction and rightly passed the order of
externment. The Petitioner is a weapon wielding gangster indulged in criminal
activities which fall under Chapter XVI & XVII of IPC and SC & ST Act. Even
during the pendency of the externment proceeding, the Petitioner has
(8) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
repeatedly committed the offences of extortion, causing hurt, committing
mischief and by issuing life threats to the citizens in their locality for which
Crime No.I-0281/2023 dated 07.06.2023 and Crime No.I-0486/2023 dated
24.09.2023 are registered. Not only this but recently even after the externment
order dated 01.03.2024 is passed, the Petitioner has committed a cognizable
offence by forming an unlawful assembly and committed crime of causing hurt
and giving threats for which Crime No.I-0128/2024 has been registered at
Shrirampur Taluka Police Station for the offence u/s. 143, 147, 149, 323, 504,
506 of the I.P.C. Even after passing of externment order dated 01.03.2024 three
(3) non-cognizable offences are registered against the Petitioner viz I) NCR No.
0589/2024 U/s. 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 registered with
Shrirampur Taluka Police Station on 26.08.2024. ii) NCR No.0656/2024 U/s.
352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 registered with Shrirampur Taluka
Police Station on 21.09.2024. iii) NCR No.0678/2024 U/s. 115(2), 352, 351(2)
and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 registered with Shrirampur Taluka Police Station
on 04.10.2024.
13. The learned APP further canvassed that, during confidential
inquiry, the SDPO Shrirampur Division opined that, due to the Petitioner’s fear
nobody dares to give statement openly against him. On the assurance about not
disclosing their names and identity and their names would be kept secret, the
SDPO recorded in-camera statements of Witness-A and Witness-B and satisfied
(9) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
that, the Petitioner is a dangerous person and due to his fear, no one dare to file
any complaint and no one deposed against him. So also, there is a live link
between the registration of crimes and the proposal submitted to the office of
the Respondent No.2 for externment of the Petitioner. Since, movement of the
Petitioner in all Talukas of Ahmednagar district are dangerous to the life and
properties of the citizens, therefore, the Respondent Authorities have rightly
passed the order of externment, which is on administrative ground, hence,
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, hence, prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
14. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both the
sides, I have gone through the petition paper book. Since the Respondent
Authorities have taken recourse of Sec. 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
therefore, it is necessary to reproduce the same which reads as under:
“56. Removal of persons about to commit offence. Whenever it shall appear
in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been
appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to
which State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend
the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in that behalf-
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person
is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence
involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII,
XVI, or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such
offence, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to
come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of
apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property;
( 10 ) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
(bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person
is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal,
Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential of the
community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential
Commodities Act, 1980, or
(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the
continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in
writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or other wise as he thinks fit,
direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem
necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or such prejudicial act, or
the outbreak or spread of such disease or [notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to remove
himself outside such area or areas in the State of Maharashtra (whether
within the local limits of his jurisdiction of the officer or not and whether
contiguous or not), by such route, and within such time as the officer may
specify and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified (hereinafter
referred to as ” the specified area or area”) from which he was directed to
remove himself.]”
15. On plain reading of Section 56 it appears that, if any person’s
movements or acts are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or
harm to person or property and there are reasonable grounds to believe that
such person is engaged or is about to engage in the commission of an offence
involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI, or
XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and if
the concerned officer believes that act of such person is likely to disturb the
peace in the society, the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate are
( 11 ) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
empowered to remove such person from any specified area or areas for the
specific period.
16. In Deepak Laxman Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.;2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93, it is held that, to invoke the said provisions there
must be objective material on record based on which the Competent Authority
must record its subjective satisfaction. It is further observed in cited case that,
even if multiple offences have been registered against an individual that by
itself is not sufficient to pass an order of externment. Moreover, there must be
satisfactory material on record to indicate the reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses of their safety and for that reason they are not coming forward to
give statement against the externee.
17. In Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad-Vs-State of Maharashtra & Ors., cited
supra, it is held that, the Externing Authority is required to satisfy the
requirements of the class of cases stipulated by clause (b) and also to consider
the crimes which were under investigation and charge-sheet had not been filed.
It is trite, the crimes which are still under investigation cannot be taken into
consideration as depending upon the outcome of the investigation, the
investigating agency may or may not send the accused for trial.
18. No doubt, in the case of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr. V/s. Sanjeev
alias Bittoo; AIR 2005 SC 2080, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the
( 12 ) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
Courts should be slow while interfering in the matters relating to
administrative functions unless decision is tainted by any vulnerability like
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Keeping in mind the
guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned orders have
been considered in the facts and circumstances of the case.
19. Reverting back to the case in hand, it prima facie appears that, the
Respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted the proposal dated
27.02.2023 in respect of externment of the Petitioner from entire Ahmednagar
District for a period of two years. The Petitioner appeared before the
Respondent No.2-SDM and put-forth his grievances. After hearing the Petitioner
at length and after following due procedure of law, the Respondent No.2 passed
the order of externment on 01.03.2024 and externed the Petitioner from entire
Talukas of Shrirampur, Rahuri, Newasa and Rahata of Ahmednagar District for
a period of one year.
20. In a confidential inquiry conducted by SDPO Division, it was
revealed that, due to the Petitioner’s fear nobody dares to give a statement
openly against the Petitioner. During confidential inquiry, the SDPO Shrirampur
Division opined that, due to the Petitioner’s fear nobody dares to give statement
openly against the Petitioner but after giving assurance about not disclosing
their names and identity,, the SDPO recorded in-camera statements of Witness-
A and Witness-B and satisfied that, the Petitioner is a dangerous person and
( 13 ) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
due to his fear, no one dares to file any complaint and no one deposed against
him. The material placed on record appears about existence of live link
between the registration of crimes and proposal of externment of the petitioner
submitted with the Respondent No.2. As per the statements of witness A &
activities of the Petitioner are dangerous to the citizens and their properties
and due to the Petitioner’s fear, no one could dare to file any complaint against
him.
21. On perusal of record it appears that, in all five crimes and one
chapter case is registered against the Petitioner. Crime No.315/2019 dated
13.08.2019 was registered against the Petitioner and his associates under
Section 307, 353, 332, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and u/s. 4/25
of the Arms and u/s. 38(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act for formation of
unlawful assembly with wooden sticks and sword. So also, attempt was made
to kill the Police officer while discharging official duty and the Petitioner played
active role while committing said crime. In another instance again the
Petitioner committed a crime by forming an unlawful assembly by entering into
shop of one Avinash Kamble and forcibly taken cash from the table drawer by
pointing sword and caused hurt to the family members of the victim. The
Petitioner also issued life threats and abused based on the caste of the victim.
Another Crime No.99/2020 is registered against the petitioner for issuing life to
one villager in public place. Another Crime No.77/2022 is registered against
( 14 ) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
the Petitioner and his associates for assaulting the Informant when he was
sleeping and caused grievous hurt. Irrespective of the above crimes registered
against the petitioner again preventive action was initiated against the
Petitioner under chapter Case No.05/2022 u/s. 110 of the Cr.P.C.. Not only this
but even after the externment order dated 01.03.2024 is passed again following
non-cognizable offences are registered against the Petitioner viz. i) NCR No.
0589/2024 U/s. 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 registered with
Shrirampur Taluka Police Station on 26.08.2024. ii) NCR No.0656/2024 U/s.
352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 registered with Shrirampur Taluka
Police Station on 21.09.2024. iii) NCR No.0678/2024 U/s. 115(2), 352, 351(2)
and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 registered with Shrirampur Taluka Police Station
on 04.10.2024. Therefore, the conduct of the Petitioner appears to be
hazardous to the people in the society, danger to the property, which amounts
to disturbing the peace, hence, no leniency can be shown to Petitioner.
22. It is not out of place to mention here that, the externment order
came to be passed by relying upon clauses (a) and (b) of Section 56 sub-section
(1) of the Act of 1951, it mandatorily provides that the acts and movements of
any person must be causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to
person or property. As per clause (b) the ground requires that, the Competent
Authority must satisfy that, the material must establish the existence of
reasonable grounds for believing that person sought to be externed is engaged
( 15 ) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or
violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian
Penal Code, or abetment of any such offence. The second part of clause (b),
which is required to be read with the first part, clearly provides that the
competent authority empowered to pass an order should form an opinion that
the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against
such person, only because of an apprehension on their part as regards safety of
their person or property. The conjoint reading of clauses (a) and (b) would,
therefore, show that in arriving at subjective satisfaction as to the grounds,
there must be objective material on record before the authority and the same
must be considered in accordance with law.
23. Certainly, the people residing in the jurisdiction of Shrirampur and
adjoining areas remain under constant fear and terror of the Petitioner and the
Petitioner’s activities have become hazardous. Indeed, in the case at hand, the
Respondents/Authorities have rightly arrived at a subjective satisfaction as
there is cogent objective material on record against the Petitioner and he has
rightly been externed from entire Taluka of Shrirampur, Rahuri, Newasa and
Rahata of Ahmednagar District for a period of one year.
24. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, I am satisfied that the
Respondent/Authorities have rightly exercised their power within the
parameters of Section 56 of the Act, and no interference by this Court is
( 16 ) 913 cri wp 1697.24.odt
warranted. There is sufficient material to extern the Petitioner which is
apparent in the orders of externment. Therefore, in my considered view, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed and hence it is dismissed.
25. Accordingly, Rule is discharged.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]
mub
[ad_1]
Source link