Chandramani S/O. Hiralal Meshram vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8894 Bom

                                           1                                      jg.wp 959.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 959 of 2017

Petitioner :                            Chandramani s/o Hiralal Meshram, 
                                         Aged about 45 years, Occ. : Private, 
                                         R/o. Manewada Ring Road, Near 
                                         Ranjana Lawn, Second Bridge, Nagpur

                                            //  Versus //

Respondents :                      (1)  The State of Maharashtra
                                          through Secretary, Home Department, 
                                          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 

                                   (2)  Deputy Commissioner of Police, 
                                          Zone-4, Nagpur City, Nagpur. 
  
 Shri A. M. Gedam, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents


                                       CORAM      :  R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                                       M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

Date : 21/11/2017.

Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of

externment dated 5-7-2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of

Police, Zone-4, Nagpur.

.....2/-

2 jg.wp 959.17.odt

3. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 issued show cause

notice on 26-12-2016 under Section 56(i)(a)(b) and Section 59 of the

Maharashtra Police Act to the petitioner as to why he should not be

externed for a period of two years from Nagpur City and District. The

petitioner filed reply dated 4-1-2017. The petitioner has specifically

replied that there is no any ground to extern him from Nagpur District.

The respondent no. 2 has not properly appreciated the facts and passed

illegal order dated 5-7-2017. It is submitted that in the said order,

reference was made to the cases registered in Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur

and Police Station, Samudrapur, District Wardha. It is also mentioned

that witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the

petitioner.

4. It is submitted that cases shown pending against the

petitioner are of the year 2016 for the offence punishable under the

provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act and one

criminal case registered by Police Station, Samudrapur, District Wardha.

It is submitted criminal case registered by Police Station, Samudrapur

was wrongly taken into consideration by the authority. At last, it is

prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel Shri Gedam for the petitioner. He has

.....3/-

3 jg.wp 959.17.odt

submitted that the respondent no. 2 wrongly considered criminal case/

crime registered by Police Station, Samudrapur. All other criminal cases

are in respect of Gambling Act, therefore, impugned order passed under

Section 56 is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of

his submission, he pointed out judgment of this Court in the case of

Zuber Shah Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Jalna reported in

(2014) 1 BomCR(Cri) 491.

6. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Doifode for

the respondents. He has supported the impugned order.

7. Perused the impugned order. From perusal of the impugned

order, it is clear that all the criminal cases/crimes registered by Police

Station, Ajni are in respect of offence punishable under Section 12A of

the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. Only one case/crime is

registered by Police Station, Samudrapur, District Wardha. Crime

registered by Police Station, Samudrapur is not in respect of the area of

Nagpur. The respondent no. 2 has wrongly taken into consideration the

said crime against the applicant. Moreover, from the perusal of reports

filed on record, it is clear that Yogesh Ramesh Fuse and Sau. Manisha

Karmore lodged the reports against each other. The petitioner is shown

one of the accused. The respondent no. 2 wrongly considered the

.....4/-

4 jg.wp 959.17.odt

offence punishable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Gambling Act. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent no. 2 has not

applied his mind while passing the order.

8. This Court in the case of Zuber Shah Vs. The Sub Divisional

Magistrate Jalna (cited supra) has observed that the offences registered

against the petitioner under provisions of the Gambling Act, cannot be

said to be so grave and serious to cause disturbance to the public at large.

Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act (now, the Maharashtra Police Act)

deals for action if the person is engaged in commission of an offence,

involving force or violence or an offence under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII

of the Indian Penal Code or other dangerous activities. The confidential

statements of few witnesses, to which learned APP invited our attention,

demonstrate that the writ petitioner has indulged in illegal betting

(Matka) activities. ... Howeever, application of extreme and stringent

provisions of Bombay Police Act, squeezing rights of petitioner of his

liberty, should not have been applied as a parameter and in routine

manner. ... Consequently, impugned order of externment is quashed

and set aside.

9. In the present case also, not a single offence under Chapters

XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code is pending against the petitioner

.....5/-

5 jg.wp 959.17.odt

registered in any of the Police Station of Nagpur District. All the cases

are in respect of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act. Those

cases are wrongly taken into consideration by the respondent no. 2. One

of the crime is registered by Police Station, Samudrapur is not in respect

of crime of Nagpur District. Hence, in view of cited judgment, impugned

order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we pass the

following order :

(a) Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i).

(b) The impugned order of externment dated 5-7-2017 passed by

the respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

                       JUDGE                                  JUDGE


wasnik




                                                                                      ...../-