Bombay High Court
Sumit Raju Marwadi vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 December, 2023
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:37911
Gokhale 1 of 5 3-wp-st-23239-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 23239 OF 2023
Sumit Raju Marwadi ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Samay Pawar for Petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 15 DECEMBER 2023
PC :
1. Rule. With consent of the parties, Rule is made
returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. Samay Pawar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the
State/Respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
24.07.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II,
Pimpri Chinchwad, externing the petitioner outside the limits of
Pimpri Chinchwad Commissionerate, Pune Rural and Pune
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2023 05:36:25 :::
2 of 5 3-wp-st-23239-23
Commissionerate for a period of one year. The petitioner
challenged that order before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune
division, Pune vide the Externment Appeal No.105 of 2023. That
appeal was partly allowed. The area of externment was limited to
Pimpri Chinchwad Police commissionerate, Pune city
commissionerate and area of Haveli, Bhor, Maval, Khed, Shirur,
Purandar taluka for a period of one year.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
externing authority had taken into account three offences
registered at Hinjwadi police station; out of which he was
acquitted from the two offences. This fact of acquittal is not taken
into consideration and, therefore, on that ground alone the
impugned order is required to be set aside.
5. Learned APP opposed these submissions. He submitted
that, it was open for the petitioner to have pointed out this fact to
the externing authority. He submitted that, in one of the offences
the Judgment was passed after the show-cause notice was issued.
6. I have considered these submissions. The externment
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2023 05:36:25 :::
3 of 5 3-wp-st-23239-23
order refers to three offences registered at Hinjwadi police station;
they are C.R.No.1250 of 2022, C.R.No.606 of 2020 and
C.R.No.230 of 2014. Besides these registered offences, there is a
reference of two proceedings taken against the petitioner in the
year 2014 and 2020 under section 110(g) of the Cr.P.C. Besides
these allegations, there is a reference to statement of two
witnesses whose statements are recorded 'in camera'. Based on
these allegations, the externment order is passed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention
to the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the J.M.F.C.
Court No.6, Pune, on 21.06.2023 in R.C.C.No.2351 of 2021.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this judgment
pertains to the C.R.No.606 of 2020. He also relied on the
Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune, on 06.03.2019 in Sessions Case No.816 of 2016. By
that order, the petitioner was acquitted from the offence registered
vide C.R.No.230 of 2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, there is total non application of mind on the part
of the externing authority and the order is passed on wrong
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2023 05:36:25 :::
4 of 5 3-wp-st-23239-23
information because the externment order mentions that these
offences were still pending decision before the Court.
8. I find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioner. The externing authority should have taken into
consideration the fact that in both these offences the petitioner
was acquitted. At least, there had to be some reference about this
acquittal. Both these judgments were passed before the
externment order was passed by the externing authority. Apart
from this, the C.R.No.230 of 2014 is obviously quite stale and yet
the externing authority relied on it to issue the order of
externment. On these grounds, the impugned order of externment
is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
9. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b); they read thus:
(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
exercise its powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, any may be pleased to quash
and set aside the second impugned order dated 23 rd
5 of 5 3-wp-st-23239-23
November 2023 passed by Respondent No.1-
Divisional Commissioner and Appellate Authority,
Pune.
(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
quash and set side the first impugned order dated
24th July 2023 passed by Respondent No.3 - Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Pimpri-Chinchwad
Police Commissionerate, Pune, under Section 56(1)
(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
ii) The petition is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
