Bombay High Court
Sk. Nafis Alias Naffu Sk. Rehman vs The Divisional Commissioner, ... on 22 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 2206wp254.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.254 OF 2016
Sk. Nafis alias Naffu Sk. Rehman,
aged about 25 years, occupation :
labourer, r/o Habib Nagar No.2,
Amravati, Taluq and District :
Amravati, at present r/o c/o Wahid
Khan Jilani, Moti Nagar, Digras,
Taluq Digras, District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Office at Camp, Amravati,
Taluq and District Amravati.
2) Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone 2, Amravati, Taluq and
District Amravati.
3) Assistant Police Commissioner,
Zone 2, Amravati,
Taluq and District Amravati. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. K.S. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondents.
----------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 22, 2016
2 2206wp254.16
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2) The order of externment dated 16/5/2015 and
appellate order upholding it passed by Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati on 4/1/2016 are questioned on
two grounds. First one is that impugned order of
externment is excessive inasmuch as when all the
offences are in relation to only one Police Station,
externment has been ordered out of Amravati city and
rural area both. Second contention is that in show
cause notice, there is mention of two in-camera
statements while in the impugned order, four
in-camera statements have been relied upon. Lastly it
is contended that out of three offences under Indian
Penal Code, first information report in Crime
No.35/2014 was already quashed on 17/10/2014.
3 2206wp254.16
3) Smt. Joshi, learned Assistant Government
Pleader in reply submits that quashing of first
information report in Crime No.35/2014 has been
looked into in the impugned order. The matter was
settled amicably and as such, first information report
has been relied upon. She further submits that there is
some confusion ig about number of in-camera
statements. Record received by her in sealed envelope
mentions that it contains three in-camera statements.
Lastly it is argued that considering the nature of
offences, Authority has ordered externment out of
entire Amravati city and rural areas.
4) We find it sufficient to look into the
contention that the impugned order is excessive.
Identical issue has been looked into by this Court while
deciding Criminal Writ Petition No.116/2016 on
17/6/2016. The impugned order does not show any
consideration as to why externment has to be out of
entire Amravati city and rural area and why it cannot
4 2206wp254.16
be from part of it. There is no deliberation anywhere
as to how externment only from area of Kotwali Police
Station would defeat the purpose.
5) In this situation, adopting the reasoning in
judgment delivered by this Court in Criminal Writ
Petition No.116/2016 on 17/6/2016, we quash and set
aside the impugned order of externment dated
16/5/2015 as also impugned appellate order dated
4/1/2016.
6) The petition is thus allowed. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
