Bombay High Court
Tukaram Dhondiram Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 23 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:2137
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2024
Tukaram s/o Dhondiram Jadhav ... Petitioner
R/o Kabansangavi (Bansavargoan), Chakur
Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Chakur Police Station, Dist. Latur
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedpur
Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur
4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Tq. Chakur, Dist Laturd
5. The Superintendent of Police, ... Respondents
District Latur
Mr. Kiran Jamdar a/w Mr. Rahul P. Cheble, Advocates for the Petitioner,
Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondents State
CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23.01.2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of both the sides.
1 of 8
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner takes exception to the
order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) in Externment Appeal bearing
Outward No. 2024/Sapra/Kaksha-1/Pol-1/Haddapar/CR-163 thereby
confirmed the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.3/Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedpur in Externment Case bearing
No.2024/MG/CR, whereby ordered the externment of the Petitioner from
the jurisdiction of Chakur Taluka and Latur District for the period of
three months from the date of receipt of the order.
3. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both sides,
I have gone through the record. It is not in dispute that, on 23.08.2024,
the petitioner was served with show notice under section 56 (a) (b) of the
Maharashtra Police Act calling upon him to show cause as to why he
should not be externed for the period of three months because of
registration of four crimes against him, as under:
Sr. Police Station Crime No. Sections
No.
1 Chakur 144/2016 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC
2 Chakur 135/2019 12(A) of Maharashtra Prohibition of
Gambling Act
3 Chakur 494/2020 353, 504 of I.P.C.
4 Chakur 394/2022 323,504,506 of I.P.C. and 3(1) (i)(r), 3(1)(i)
(s) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
2 of 8
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
4. On 29.08.2024, the petitioner replied said notice and denied
contents of notice under section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
According to the Petitioner, he already acquitted in Crime No. 144 of 2016
and Crime No. 494 of 2020 after full-fledged trial. Therefore, on the day
of service of notice dated 23.08.2024, Crime Nos. 144 of 2016 and 494 of
2020 were not registered against him. The Petitioner further contended
that he is social worker and Vice President of National Congress Party for
six years. He always agitating for the grievances of poor and needy people,
however, under the pressure of landlords and politicians, he has been
falsely implicated in the crime and served with the notice, hence, prayed
for the recall of the notice.
5. On 21.10.2024, Respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Ahmedpur passed an order in Externment Case bearing No.2024/MG/CR
holding that from 2016 to 2022, various crimes are registered against the
present petitioner including offences under sections, 353, 323,504,506 of
I.P.C. and 3(1) (i)(r), 3(1)(i)(s) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
Section 12(A) of Maharashtra Prohibition of Gambling Act but there is no
change in behaviour of the Petitioner. Therefore, considering the code of
conduct, probable State Legislative Assembly Election 2024 and to prevent
threats to public servants at the hands of petitioner and to maintain peace
in society and prevent racial conflict, the petitioner externed from the
3 of 8
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
jurisdiction of Chakur Taluka and Latur District for the period of three
months.
6. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed Appeal bearing
Outward No.2024/Sapra/Kaksha-1/Pol-1/Haddapar/CR-163 before
Respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner,Chh. Sambhajinagar
(Aurangabad). On 27.11.2024, the Respondent No.2/appellate authority
passed the impugned order and affirmed order passed by the Respondent
no. 3 holding that, though the petitioner acquitted in Crime No. 144 of
2016 and Crime No. 494 of 2020 but trial of Crime No. 135 of 2019 for
the offence under section 12(A) of Maharashtra Prohibition of Gambling
Act and Crime No. 394 of 2022 for the offences punishable under section
323,504,506 of I.P.C. and 3(1) (i)(r), 3(1)(i)(s) of SC ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act are pending.
7. Needless to say that, the petitioner is already acquitted in Crime
No. 144/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 143, 147,
148, 149 of IPC vide Judgment dated 11.07.2024 and in Crime No.
494/2020 registered for the offences punishable u/secs 353, 504 of IPC
vide judgment dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court
Latur in Sessions case No. 23 of 2023 after fullfledge trial. Therefore, the
trials only in respect of two crimes i.e. Crime Nos. 135 of 2019 for the
offence under section 12(A) of Maharashtra Prohibition of Gambling Act
4 of 8
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
and Crime No. 394 of 2022 for the offences under sections 323, 504, 506
of I.P.C. and 3(1)(i)(r), 3(1)(i)(s) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
are pending before the competent Court. Furthermore, the crimes
registered against the Petitioner are not recent, even at the time of the
issuance of the notice Under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
8. In Mohammad Alam Ibrahim Shaikh @ Alu Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2593, it is held that delay of 18 months
from the date of show cause notice not explaining and the order was not
on basis of offence registered. On the contrary offences are of very serious
nature, preventive action and live link not snapped. The delay in
passing order of externment by itself is not fatal, there has to be some
satisfactory explanation for delay and delay should not result in snapping
live link. It was held that the delay resulted in snapping live link between
preventive action and allegation.
9. In case of Harikesh @ Guddu Madan Kattilwar Vs. Deputy Police
Commissioner (Criminal Writ Petition No. 908 of 2022), decided on
24.01.2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed in paragraph
Nos. 14 and 15 as under:
"14) It is to be noted that this order passed by the respondent
No.1 and confirmed by the respondent No.3 suffers from the
virus of excessiveness. The order of externment apart from
5 of 8
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
making inroads on the personal liberty guaranteed under the
Constitution of India, makes the said person live separate from
his family members. Similarly, the externment order can
deprive the said person of his livelihood. In the given case,
depending upon the financial position of the person, it can
make the dependents of the said person to starve. Therefore, in
order to justify the externment for a maximum period of two
years, the Authority is required to consider the objective
material to record subjective satisfaction on all points. In this
case, I am constrained to observe that the order passed by the
respondent No.1 is woefully silent on all these points. The
respondent No.1 has not recorded the reasons to order the
externment of the petitioner for a period of two years and that
too from the entire Amravati District. It is seen on perusal of
the notice and order that all the crimes committed by the
petitioner were within the jurisdiction of Frezarpura Police
Station, Amravati City.
15) In my considered opinion, therefore, the order passed by
the respondent No.1 and confirmed by the respondent No.3
suffers from the virus of excessiveness. The law laid down on
the point in the cases of Shaikh Mukhtyar S/o Mustafa Shaikh
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [2017 ALL.M.R. (Cri.) 268
and Bhagwat Dadasaheb Landge and Another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others [2020(5) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 546], would,
therefore, equally apply in this case. It is to be noted that the
excessive nature of the order on both the counts is one of the
factors, which would weigh in favour of the petitioner. The
order of externment, making a direct inroads on the
fundamental right of movement, must, therefore, pass all the
legal tests. In this case, the order passed by the respondent
No.1 and confirmed by the respondent No.3 do not pass the
said test. It is to be noted that the respondent No.3 despite
being confronted with the factual position vis-a-vis the
acquittal of the petitioner in four crimes and his involvement in
four crimes under the Prohibition Act, confirmed the said
order. Perusal of the order of the respondent No.3 would show
that the respondent No.3 has recorded factual submissions, but
6 of 8
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
failed to sufficiently deal with the same. Therefore, in my view,
this order is not sustainable."
10. Needless to say that considering registration of crimes referred in
the notice dated 23.08.2024 it appears that all four crimes are stale, and
the petitioner was acquitted in two of them after trial. However, the
appellate authority suspected about causing any obstruction while
discharging duties by police officials during State Legislative Assembly
Election 2024, therefore the petitioner has been externed for the period of
three months in order to maintain code of conduct and to conduct election
peacefully, however the said election already been held and the results
were declared on 20.11.2024.
11. In view of above discussion and considering the nature of
offences as well as conduct of the petitioner, ordering the externment of
the petitioner for the period of three months would be unjustifiable.
Therefore, the extenrment order 21.10.2024 passed by Respondent
No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedpur and affirmed by the
Respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner vide it's order dated
27.11.2024 need to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following order:
7 of 8
J-Ext-WP2023-24.odt
ORDER
(i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 2023 of 2024 is hereby allowed.
(ii) The order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.3/Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Ahmedpur and confirmed vide order dated
27.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner,
is hereby quash and set aside.
(iii) Rule is partly made absolute in above terms.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )
JPChavan
8 of 8
