Bombay High Court
Ashok Ramhari Gharat vs The Divisional Commissioner And ... on 18 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:4934
922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1469 OF 2024
Ashok S/o Ramhari Gharat
Age: 50 years, Occu: Driver & Agri.,
R/o. Mahajanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar,
Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar
2] The Sub Divisional Officer @
Magistrate, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed
3] Neknur Police Station, Neknur
Tq & Dist. Beed,
Through its Inspector ... RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms Chaitali Chaudhari - Kutti, APP for the Respondents - State
....
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 18.02.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent
of both the sides it is heard finally.
1 of 11
(( 2 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
2. By the present Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugned the order dated
11.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 Appellate Authority, whereby
upheld order dated 19.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 Sub
Divisional Officer @ Magistrate, Beed, externing the Petitioner for a
period of one year.
3. The Police Authorities have sought to invoke Section 56
of the Maharashtra Police Act and issued a notice dated 06.01.2024 to
the Petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation as to why he
should not be externed from Beed, Dharashiv and Ahmednagar
Districts because of registration of following crimes:
i) Crime No.28 of 2016 registered against him for the offence punishable
under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 26-F, 41 of the
Forest Act,
ii) Crime No.48 of 2017 for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. read
with Section 26-F, 41 of the Forest Act, Section 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Forest Act.
iii) Crime No.137 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 379 of Indian
Penal Code read with Section 26-F, 41 of the Forest Act, Section 3 and
4 of the Maharashtra Forest Act,
iv) Crime No.168 of 2022, for the offence under Section 379 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 26-F, 41, 42 of the Forest
Act and
v) Chapter Case No.43 of 2023 under Section 107 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on 31.03.2023.
2 of 11
(( 3 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
4. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted his reply and stated
that, he is belonging to the Agricultural family. His wife, two sons and
old aged parents are dependent on his income. He has no source of
income except agriculture labour work. He further stated that, Crime
No.104 of 2015 registered with Neknoor Police Station against him
due to bad company of other accused persons. The Police Authority
filed chargesheet against him in the said crime, which is later on
registered as R.C.C. No.459 of 2016. After conclusion of trial, he is
acquitted in said crime. Thereafter, Crime No.34 of 2012 was
registered against him with Pimpalner Police Station. After
investigation, the chargesheet was filed against him, which later on
registered as R.C.C. No.377 of 2013. After conclusion of the trial, he
is acquitted in said crime. In crime No.28 of 2016, charge sheet was
filed and it was registered as R.C.C. No.45 of 2016, but on conclusion
of trial, he is acquitted on 17.05.2019. Further Crime No.48 of 2017
registered against him with Neknoor Police Station, but trial of said
crime is pending. The trial of R.C.C. No.272 of 2017 and R.C.C.
No.14 of 2020 are pending against him and other accused. Another
Crime No.168 of 2022 was registered with Neknoor Police Station
and after filing of charge sheet it is registered as R.C.C. No.193 of
3 of 11
(( 4 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
2023 but trial is pending. According to the Petitioner, he has been
falsely implicated in all these crimes and he is having hope of his
acquittal in all these crime. However, due to service of notice under
Section 56(1)(A)(B) of the Maharashtra Police Act, his family is
facing problems. So also, his family members are suffering agony and
they are deprived from his income. It is further submitted that,
hereinafter the petitioner would be obedient citizen and would
became a good father for his children. However, on 19.04.2024, the
Respondent No.2 passed an order and externed the Petitioner for a
period of one year from entire Beed District.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed
Appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act. On
11.07.2024, the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order and
upheld order of externment passed by Respondent No.2 on
19.04.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner canvassed in
vehemence that, the impugned orders passed by the Respondent
Police Authorities, are with utter disregard to the principles of natural
justice and contrary to the provisions of Section 56 of the
4 of 11
(( 5 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Therefore, both the orders are not
sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further canvassed that, though
Respondent No.2 passed an order on 19.04.2024 holding that, the
statements of confidential witnesses (A) and (B) are recorded but
the Respondent No.2 fail to verify said statements personally to arrive
at conclusion that due to activities of the Petitioner there is danger to
life of the citizens and property. So also, the witnesses are not coming
forward due to terror of the Petitioner. The offences which have been
considered while issuing notice under Section 56 of the Maharashtra
Police Act but the Petitioner already acquitted in Crime No. 28 of
2016 registered with Wadwani Police Station under Section 26 F, 41
of Forest Act and Section 379 of I.P.C. and in Crime No.137 of 2019
registered with Neknoor Police Station for the offence under Section
379 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 26 F, 41 of the Indian Forest Act
and Section 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Forest Act. Therefore, the
Police Authorities could have discard both offences while passing the
order of externment. However, both the authorities below have failed
to consider acquittal of the petitioner in two crimes. Therefore, the
impugned order is illegal, bad in law, hence, prayed for quash and set
aside the same impugned orders.
5 of 11
(( 6 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
7. Per contra, Shri Chandrakant Govind Gosavi, Assistant
Police Inspector, Neknoor Police Station, filed reply affidavit and
strongly opposed the Petition. The learned APP canvassed that, on
06.01.2024, the Petitioner served with the notice under Section 56(1)
(A)(B) of the Maharashtra Police Act and called upon the Petitioner to
submit his cause as to why he can not be externed from entire Beed,
Dharashiv and Ahmednagar Districts due to his various criminal
activities and registration of several crimes. The Petitioner is
indulged into serious nature of crimes and his behaviour in society is
danger to life of persons in the society and property. So also, due to
terror of the Petitioner, the witnesses are not coming forward to
depose against him. Though the Petitioner submitted his reply but it
was not found proper and satisfactory. Therefore, on 19.04.2024, the
Respondent No.2 passed an order considering statements of witness A
and B (confidential), who have stated that the Petitioner is engaged
into committing theft of sandalwood and causing extortion of money
from the people in society by issuing threats. So also, the Petitioner
indulged into dealing with illegal business of selling of sandalwood
with the help of some peoples from the society and issuing threats to
the citizens. Therefore, there is danger to the life of shopkeepers,
6 of 11
(( 7 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
businessmen and normal people. It is further canvass that, due to
criminal activities of the Petitioner no one coming forward to lodge a
report against the Petitioner.
8. The learned APP further canvassed that, while passing the
order dated 19.04.2024, the Respondent No.2 considered the reply
filed by the Petitioner and externed the petitioner for a period of one
year from entire Beed district. On 11.07.2024, the Respondent No.1
appellate authority passed the impugned order and upheld order
passed by the Respondent no. 2. The Respondent Police Authorities
have complied with principles of natural justice by giving sufficient
opportunity to the petitioner to submit reply and provided sufficient
opportunity of hearing.
9. It is further canvassed that, initiation of externment
proceeding under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act is an
administrative action to prevent the particular person from indulging
into criminal activities and to prevent from committing similar nature
of crimes in the society. Therefore,said administrative action cannot
be interfered by this Court.
7 of 11
(( 8 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
10. In support of these submissions, the learned APP placed
reliance on the case of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr. Vs. Sanjeev alias
Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that, the Courts will be slow in interfering in the matters relating to
administrative functions unless decision is tainted by any vulnerability
like illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
11. Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in cited case,I have gone through the petition paper book.
In case-in-hand it is not disputed that, the Petitioner served with the
notice dated 06.01.2024 under Section 56(1)(A)(B) of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and he was called upon to submit his
reply as to why he should not be externed from Beed, Dharashiv and
Ahmednagar Districts for a period of two years, due to registration of
(1) Crime No.28 of 2016 with Wadwani Police Station, (2) Crime
No.48 of 2017 with Neknoor Police Station, (3) Crime No.137 of
2019 with Neknoor Police Station, (4)Crime No.168 of 2022 with
Neknoor Police Station and (5) Chapter Case No.43 of 2023
registered with Neknoor Police Station.
8 of 11
(( 9 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
12. Indeed, the Petitioner submitted his cause stating that, he
is acquitted in Crime No.104 of 2015 registered with Neknoor Police
Station, Crime No.34 of 2012 registered with Pimpalner Police Station
and Crime No.28 of 2016 registered with Neknoor Police Station.
The notice dated 06.01.2024 does not disclose about registration of
Crime No.104 of 2015 with Neknoor Police Station and Crime No.34
of 2012 registered with Pimpalner Police Station.
13. No doubt, the Petitioner acquitted in Crime No.28 of
2016 vide Judgment and order dated 17.05.2019. Further, vide
judgment and order dated 18.01.2024, the Petitioner is acquitted in
Crime No. 137 of 2019 registered with Neknoor Police Station for the
offences under Section 324, 341, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. However,
trials of other crimes are pending against the Petitioner before the
competent Court. As per Notice dated 06.01.2024, Crime No.28 of
2016 only registered with Wadwani Police Station, Taluka Wadwani,
District Beed and other offence described at Serial Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5
are registered with Neknoor Police Station, District Beed. Since the
Petitioner indulged into various criminal activities committing theft of
sandalwood and causing danger to the life of citizens and properties.
The offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are covered under
9 of 11
(( 10 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
Chapter 17 of I.P.C. Therefore, Respondent No.2 authority require to
consider criminal and endanger activities of the Petitioner within the
jurisdiction of particular Talukas. Since, the Petitioner is not indulged
into any such criminal activities in other talukas except Wadwani and
Beed Talukas, therefore, the Petitioner could have been externed from
Wadwani and Beed Talukas. However, while passing the order dated
19.04.2024, the Respondent No.2 Authority has not assigned any
reason for externment of the Petitioner beyond Wadwani and Beed
Talukas, though the petitioner has not indulged into criminal
activities in other talukas of Beed District. On 11.07.2024, the
Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order and upheld order dated
19.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 just to prevent criminal
activities of the petitioner. Therefore, considering nature of crimes
registered against the Petitioner as well as his fundamental rights of
granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India in respect of
free movement, it would be just and proper to extern the Petitioner
from Wadwani and Beed Talukas and the Petitioner cannot be
externed from entire Beed district. In view of above discussion,
impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.1
upholding order dated 19.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 needs
10 of 11
(( 11 )) 922-*Cri-WP-1469-2024
to be modified to the extent of area of externment for Wadwani and
Beed Talukas. Accordingly, impugned order dated 11.07.2024 passed
by Respondent No.1 arising out of order dated 19.04.2024 passed by
Respondent No.2 is hereby modified and order of externment of the
Petitioner is restricted to the extent of Wadwani and Beed Talukas.
14. Accordingly, Rule is made partly absolute. Writ Petition is
disposed of.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]
SMS
11 of 11
