High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 1 ) WP-198-2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2025Sujit Punamchand Kahate/RajputAge: 35, Occu: Farmer/DriverR/o. Karnapura, Chh. Sambhajinagar...PETITIONERVERSUS1.The Divisional Commissioner,Chh. Sambhajinagar Division. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police(Zone-1), Chh. Sambhajinagar.3.The Senior Police Inspector,Chawani Police Station.4.The State of MaharashtraThrough Home Department....RESPONDENTSMr. Shubham Kahite (Through VC) h/f Mr. D. D. Sahaji, Advocate forPetitioner.Smt. A. S. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:20th JUNE 2025.PRONOUNCED ON:10th JULY 2025.ORDER :- Ethape( 2 ) WP-198-20251.Heard Mr. Kahite, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, and Smt.Deshmukh, the learned APP for Respondent-State, finally at the stage ofadmission, with the consent of the parties.2.The present petitioner has approached this Court challenging ajudgment and order dated 21st January 2025, passed by the learnedDivisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar, partly allowing theappeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Courtto the extent of not allowing the appeal completely. 3.By way of impugned judgment and order, the learned DivisionalCommissioner modified the order passed by the learned DeputyCommissioner of Police (Zone-1), Chh. Sambhajinagar, by reducing theperiod of externment from two years to one year. The learned DeputyCommissioner of Police had passed an order externing the petitionerfrom District Chh. Sambhajinagar for two years by order dated 12thNovember 2024. 4.The facts, in short, are that an action was initiated against thepresent petitioner under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Ethape( 3 ) WP-198-2025A report was received about the petitioner from the Police Sub-Inspector,MIDC Waluj Police Station, through the Senior Police Inspector,Chhawani Police Station, Chh. Sambhajinagar. A proposal was thusprepared and sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The DeputyCommissioner of Police considered that there are four offences pendingagainst the petitioner, as detailed below:Sr.No.PoliceStationCrime No. and SectionsRegistrationdateStatus1.ChhawaniC.R. No. 3077/2015, Section160 of IPC.13.05.2015Acquittal.2.ChhawaniC. R. No. 312/2015, Sections384, 34 of IPC25.09.2015Acquittal3.ChhawaniC. R. No. 179/2025, Sections324, 323, 504, 34 of IPC11.04.2024Pending4.ChhawaniC. R. No. 568/2024, Sections115(2), 74, 324(1), 125351(2), 352 of IPC r/w Sec.4/25 of the Arms Act r/w Sec.3 and 7 of the IndianAmendment Act, and Sec.135 of the Maharashtra PoliceAct.06.11.2024Underinvestigation5.ChhawaniChapter Case No.51/2024,Section 107 of Cr.P.C. 12.04.2024. Ethape( 4 ) WP-198-2025 Considering this material, the learned Deputy Commissioner ofPolice had passed an order externing the petitioner from District Chh.Sambhajinagar for two years. 5.The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before thelearned Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar. The learnedCommissioner recorded that the order appeared to be excessive andrestricted the period of externment to one year instead of two years. Thepetitioner is thus before this Court. 6.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner vehemently argued thatthe impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner isillegal and without any material. The learned Divisional Commissionerought to have considered that there is no sufficient material to takeaction against the petitioner and ought to have quashed and set asidethe order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Police. Thelearned Advocate further submits that only four cases were consideredagainst the petitioner. Out of these, he is acquitted in two cases. Those Ethape( 5 ) WP-198-2025two cases were filed in 2015 and could not have been considered. Out oftwo cases of 2024, one is pending before the Court and the other isunder investigation. Thus, there is nothing to show that he has beenfound guilty of any of the offences. The preventive action is from theyear 2024. Looking at the sections for which he has been prosecuted, itdoes not show that externing him is necessary. There is no satisfactionrecorded by the authority while passing the order. The secret statementswere not known to the petitioner, and thus there is a violation of theprinciples of natural justice and on that count also, the impugned orderdeserves to be quashed and set aside. The say filed by the petitioner inresponse to the notice was not properly considered by the learnedDeputy Commissioner of Police. 7.Smt. Deshmukh, the learned APP, vehemently opposed thepetition. She submits that the number of offences shows that the actionis very much required. The representation was rightly considered. Thereare secret statements recorded of two persons indicating that people inthe locality are not coming forward to speak against the petitioner. If he
Decision
Ethape( 6 ) WP-198-2025is not externed, he will create a law and order situation, and therefore,the action was taken. It is the subjective satisfaction of the authority onthe basis of available material that the order is passed. She prays fordismissal of the writ petition. 8.This Court notices that there are only four cases that wereconsidered. Out of these four cases, two are from 2015. The petitionerhas been acquitted in both the cases. Out of two cases from 2024, one ispending before the Court, and other is still at the stage of investigation.This Court finds that there is no sufficient material so far as past historyis concerned. Coming to the secret statements, it is seen that both thestatements are stereotyped, showing that the petitioner showed a knifeand threatened not to make complaint before the police. In the anotherstatement, it is shown that by showing a knife, he ransom the amount ofRs.1,000/-. There is one instance where preventive action was taken. 9.While arguing the case, the learned Advocate for the petitionerrelied upon the following judgments: Ethape( 7 ) WP-198-2025(i)Umar Mohamed Malbari Vs. K. P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and Anr.1;(ii)Avinash Kailash Ughade Vs. The State of Maharashtra2;(iii)Harikesh @ Guddu Madan Kattilwar Vs. Deputy Police Commissioner and Ors. (Cri. WP/908/2022 Nagpur).10.In the case of Umar Malbari (supra), this Court considered that theactivities alleged against the petitioner were restricted within a certainlocality. The petitioner therein, however, was externed from entiredistrict. It was found that this was an excessive order violating Article 19of the Constitution of India. The action of externment was, therefore, setaside. It was also held that the impugned order therein suffered from thevoice of exercise of excessive jurisdiction. 11.In the case of Avinash Ughade (supra), this Court held on similarlines that even though the activities were restricted in particular areas,he was externed from the entire district. In the case of HarikeshKattilwar (supra), this Court observed that the petitioner was acquitted11988 MahLJ 103422014 SCC OnLine Bom 4058. Ethape( 8 ) WP-198-2025in the cases that were considered by the officer. In that case, thepetitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice, and thus, theauthority had no knowledge of the acquittal from these cases. This Courtconsidered that, in fact, it was necessary for the authority to make aninquiry as to whether the cases were pending or had been disposed offbefore passing the order. 12.From these judgments, this Court finds that it is the duty of theauthorities to satisfy itself about the pending cases. In the present case,as already observed, there is acquittal in two cases, and those are of year2015. From 2015 for about nine years, there is no offence registered till2024. Though the learned APP submitted that the offences are seriousof voluntarily causing hurt etc., this Court finds that there is alreadyacquittal and only one case is pending. Considering the secretstatements also, this Court finds that those are not sufficient enough totake excessive action. This Court, therefore, is satisfied that a case ismade out to allow the writ petition. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed.Hence, the following order: Ethape( 9 ) WP-198-2025 ORDER(i)Writ petition stands allowed.(ii)The impugned judgment and order dated 21st January2025, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Chh.Sambhajinagar, is quashed and set aside. (iii)With this, writ petition stands disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]