Bombay High Court
Yogesh Udaram Gokhe vs The State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Khapa ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:506-DB
1 wp885.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.885/2022
Yogesh Udaram Gokhe,
aged about 50 Yrs., Citizenship Indian,
Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Gadeval Mohalla,
Ward No.7, Khapa, Tah. Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
P.S. Khapa, Tah. Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur (Rural), Nagpur.
3. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. N.R. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 9.1.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
2 wp885.2022
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by
the respondent No.4 dated 9.12.2022 by which the petitioner was
externed from the limits of Nagpur district for a period of six
months.
3. Two notices were issued to the petitioner. By notice
dated 23.3.2019 the respondent No.4 had directed the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Saoner Division to submit its findings
with respect to the application proposing the externment of the
petitioner which was preferred by the Police Station, Khapa. The
Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner informed the respondent No.4
that the nature of offences registered against the petitioner are
minor and Crime Nos.181/2021 and 63/2019 are under trial and
based on the aforesaid offences to pass an order of externment
would not be appropriate against the petitioner.
3 wp885.2022
4. After receiving the report of the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Saoner and the reply filed by the petitioner the
respondent No.4 has issued a fresh show cause notice on
23.4.2019 relying six same offences which were registered during
the period of 2014 to 2019. The confidential statements of the
witnesses were not recorded and it is even not mentioned in both
the notices. The petitioner is ordered to remove himself from the
Nagpur District in addition to Saoner Taluka for a period of six
months and not to enter such area without prior permission of the
respondent No.4.
5. The petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by
this Court in Shri Baburao Changa Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra
and another passed by Principal Seat of this Court in Writ
Petition No.3953/2011 delivered on 11.5.2012 in which in para
10 it is observed as follows:-
"10. Undoubtedly Section 56 of the said Act
enables the externing authority to extern a
person, even from an area outside the local limits
of the jurisdiction of the externing authority. In
4 wp885.2022
fact, the externing authority has been conferred
with a power to direct a person to remove himself
outside any area or areas in the State of
Maharashtra. However, it is obvious that the basic
object of the externment proceedings is to keep a
person, whose activities are causing problems in a
particular area, out of that area. The externment
order affects the fundamental rights of a citizen
and, therefore,, it has to be reasonable. A person
cannot be put under a greater restraint than
would be absolutely necessary. Even if there
would be a case for externment of a person, he
cannot be externed from the entire State or from
an area greater than what would be necessary for
preventing the activities of such person taking
place in a particular area or locality. If the action is
more drastic than is necessary for attaining the
desired result, it cannot stand the Judicial
scrutiny."
The petitioner has prayed to set aside the
order passed by the respondent No.4.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. After going through the order passed by the
respondent No.4 on 9.12.2022 it appears that three offences i.e.
Crime No.53/2021 punishable under Section 379 read with
5 wp885.2022
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No.181/2021 punishable
under Sections 294, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
and Crime No.88/2022 punishable under Sections 379 and 109
of I.P.C. are considered for passing the externment order. Though
above three crimes are considered the chargesheet of entire
offences is filed along with the record. In crime No.53/2021 for
the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code committed on 23.2.2021, "C" summary is
filed on 10.8.2021 and in another offence i.e. Crime No.88/2022
petitioner is acquitted. The externment order is passed only
considering one Crime i.e. Crime No.181/2022 which is
considered along with earlier offences. It appears that the
externment order is passed on the material which could not have
been relied on for the purpose of exercising discretion under
Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. In some of the
crimes allegedly committed by the petitioner, he is already
acquitted. There is report of Sub-Divisional Police Officer giving
an opinion that to pass an order of externment against the
6 wp885.2022
petitioner would not be appropriate. We find nothing on record
justifying the passing of externment order against the petitioner.
Neither the statements of confidential witnesses are recorded nor
produced on record. Hence the impugned order passed by the
respondent No.4 requires to be quashed and set aside.
8. Though we are setting aside the impugned order of
externment, it is to be noted that the externment period
prescribed by the said order has already lapsed.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated
9.12.2022 passed by respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside.
Rule accordingly.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2025 14:47:04
