Bombay High Court
Gopal Govind Lakade vs The Divisional Commissioner And Others on 9 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:17509
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 683 OF 2024
Gopal s/o Govind Lakade,
Age :- 43 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o Borwati, Tq. & Dist. Latur
At present R/o Datta Temple,
Tokwadi Phata, Sirsala Road,
Parali, Dist. Beed. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate
Office of Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Near Ashok Hotel, Latur
3. Superintendent of Police,
Office of S. P. Ambajogai Road,
Latur
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Latur Rural Division, Barshi Road,
Latur
5. The Police Inspector,
Latur Rural Police Station,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.H. Dighe h/f Mr. H.D. Deshmukh
APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5/State : Mr. S.D. Ghayal
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
RESERVED ON : JULY 30, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 09, 2024
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
2. The Petitioner has impugned the orders of externment
passed under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Latur, dated 08.12.2023 in Proceeding No.
2023/ MAG/ Externment/ CR-127 and the order of Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 27.03.2024 passed in Externment
Appeal Outward No. 2023 / GA / Desk-1 / Pol-1/ Externment/ CR-
133.
3. The SDPO, Latur placed a proposal against the petitioner
for externment under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act. A
show cause notice under Section 56(1) was served upon the
petitioner on 19.05.2023. In a show cause notice issued by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, two crimes of 2019, 2022 and 2 N.C. of 2022
and 2023 were quoted.
4. The petitioner was called upon to explain the externment
proposal. The petitioner had submitted his say on 05.10.2023. He
denied the proposal of externment against him. The notice does not
mention the place of the incident and time. No details have been
given that his movements were caused or calculated to cause alarm,
danger or harm to persons or property. Barely the crimes are pending.
Taking illegal action under Section 56 violates the liberty of the
applicant. A common man has no concern nor any disturbance from
him. The crimes registered against him were not related to law and
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
order. Some individuals have registered the crimes against him.
Hence, the proposal against him should be dropped.
5. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate recorded the finding that the action under Section 149 of
the Criminal Procedure Code was taken against the petitioner. The
crimes registered against him fall under Sections 15 and 16 of the
Indian Penal Code. The opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner. The SDPO recorded the reasons that considering the
frequent crimes registered against him and its number corroborates
the proposal. His movements were causing or calculated to cause
alarm, danger or harm to the persons and property. Considering the
material before it, the impugned order is passed. The Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad, agreeing with the order of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate and going through the papers, hold that there is
material against the petitioner to take action under Section 56 of the
Maharashtra Police Act has recorded the finding that even after the
proposal of externment was moved, there were no changes in his
behaviour. He confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
However, he has reduced the area of externment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that the first crime registered against the petitioner was within the
family. It was a counter case. Therefore, it would not be material to
consider for an action of externment. After the externment order was
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
passed, the authority granted him leave to enter Latur which shows
that his movements were not harmful to the public or the public
property. The Appellate Authority had stayed the externment orders.
The authorities should have considered that the petitioner was not
convicted of any crime. There was no live link or proximity between
the registration of the offences and the initiation of the action of
externment. One offence is of 2019, and another is of 2022. The rest
of the offences were non-cognizable. The externing authority did not
personally verify the camera witnesses. Section 56(1)(a)(b) has not
been strictly complied with. The fundamental rights and liberty
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India have been
violated. The norms laid down by the judicial pronouncements have
not been considered.
7. Per contra, the learned APP would submit that for an
action under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the conclusion
of the trial is not essential. On the contrary, repeated registration of
crime is the best material to initiate action under Section 56 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. He would submit that Section 56(1) was
complied with. There was a live link and proximity between the
registration of the crime and initiating the action against the
petitioner. His movements were dangerous to the public and public
property. Article 19 of the Constitution of India has not been violated.
There was objective material to record subjective satisfaction. None of
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
the required provisions of the law have been violated. Hence, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. The law is well settled that while exercising the powers
under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the Externing
Authority has to bear in mind the fundamental right of the externee
under the Constitution of India. No such orders should be
mechanically passed. The provisions of Section 56 are strictly
complied with. Appropriate show cause notice should be served upon
the petitioner, making him aware of the crimes registered against him.
That would be an objective material before the authority to record the
subjective satisfaction. Extraneous material should not be considered
in such cases. For exercising the powers under Section 56(1)(b), the
competent authority must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to
come forward to give evidence against the externee by reason of
apprehension on their part regarding their safety or property.
Recording the subjective satisfaction by the competent authority is
sine qua non for passing valid orders of externment.
9. The show cause notice shows that the petitioner was
informed that a crime under Section 354(b), 452, 294, 324, 323, 504,
506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in the year 2019.
In 2022, another crime under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code was registered. Two N.C. cases were registered
in 2022 and 2023, for which notice under Section 149 of the Criminal
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
Procedure Code was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was
also informed that the witnesses are not coming forward openly
against him due to apprehension of their safety and the safety of their
property.
10. The papers placed before the Court reveal that Crime
No.57/2019 was registered against the petitioner. Since then, no
crime has been registered till 2022. The petitioner explained about
the crime of 2019, that it was a counter case against the assault on his
sister-in-law and brothers. He explained that the crime of 2022 was a
counter case registered in his report as a money lender. The crime was
registered after passing the order under Section 156(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. N.C. of 2022 was registered again filed on
the false report of the complainant in Crime No.57/2019. N.C. of
2023 was registered falsely. A dispute arose out of the sale
transaction. Another N.C. of 2023 was registered on the false
complaint of the gazetted officer. He made the complaint against the
said officer that his mother was landless and he had purchased the
land. He raised the objection against the mutation. The objection of
the petitioner is that his submissions were not properly appreciated.
Therefore, the impugned orders are illegal.
11. Perused the papers produced before the Court. It appears
that the petitioner has a dispute with Ghogre family. In a crime
registered against him in 2018 on the report of the Ghogre family, he
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
was acquitted. As far as Crime No.216 of 2022 is concerned, it was a
crime registered after the order of the Court under Section 156(3) of
the Criminal Procedure Code by a private person about transferring
the property in the name of his brothers, which was sold to him.
Prima facie it appears that it was a civil dispute. Therefore, the
explanation of the petitioner that it was a transaction arising out of
money lending has been corroborated. Both impugned orders are
silent about the findings on the submissions made by the petitioner
except for the word that it is not satisfactory.
12. Since the powers under Section 56 were exercised
casually, the Government has issued a circular dated 15.03.2013,
which was a part of the record. All officers concerned were directed
that while externing the accused for the offence of cheating and
economic offence, the concerned officer has to record the finding that
the general public has danger because of personal disputes, the
proposal for the externment could not be presented. But N.C.s were
again registered by the family of Ghogre. Both authorities did not
record the correct findings based on objective satisfaction. Objective
satisfaction would be a basis for recording the subjective satisfaction
of the externing authority. In a show cause notice, the petitioner was
informed that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence
in public against the petitioner due to apprehension about the safety
of their person and property. However, both authorities are silent on
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
this fact. So, it can be said that the show cause notice was issued
mechanically. The Externinig Authority had no material as such. The
first crime was registered against the petitioner in 2019. Till 2022,
there were no crimes registered against him. The crimes registered
against him arose from the parties' private rights. Therefore, it could
not be said that there was a live link and proximity between the
registration of the offence and initiation of the action of the
externment proceeding. There was no objective material before the
authority to record the subjective satisfaction that the movements or
the acts of the petitioner were causing or likely to cause alarm, danger
or harm to a person or property. In the circular mentioned above, it
was clear that the externing authority should mention specifically the
reasons for the externment, that out of the crimes of cheating and
economic offences, the general public was in danger. No such reasons
were cited in both impugned orders.
13. Examining both orders with the required conditions to
exercise power under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act have
not been strictly adhered to. Hence, the Court believes that the
petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order of externment of Sub Divisional Officer cum
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Latur dated 08.12.2023 passed
wp-683-2024 judg.odt
in Proceeding No. 2023/ MAG/ Externment/ CR-127 and
the order of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated
27.03.2024 passed in Externment Appeal Outward No.
2023 / GA / Desk-1 / Pol-1/ Externment/ CR-133 stand
quashed and set aside and the bond executed by the
petitioner also stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S.G. MEHARE, J.)
Mujaheed//
