Bombay High Court
Wasudeo @ Wasu S/O Hanuman Thakre vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Sub Division ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:4803-DB
1 cr.wp.255.25-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2025
Wasudeo @ Wasu S/o Hanuman Thakre,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. - Business,
R/o. Chiradevi, Taluka Bhadravati,
District : Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Sub Division Police Officer,
Warora, Dist.: Chandrapur
2. Police Inspector,
Police Station Warora,
Tq. and District Chandrapur
3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Warora. ... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Garima Jain, Advocate h/f. Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. H. D. Marathe, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 24.04.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05.05.2025
JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of externment dated
04.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3 externing the petitioner for a
period of 09 months from the District of Chandrapur.
2 cr.wp.255.25-J.odt
3. In the instant matter, respondent No.2, sent a proposal for
the externment of the petitioner under Section 59 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer was appointed to
investigate the externment proposal. The petitioner provided a written
explanation addressing each antecedent considered for his externment.
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer issued a show cause notice, which
was received by the petitioner in order to explain as to why he should
not be externed. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner
also filed written submissions against the case which was made out
against him. After considering the evidence and hearing both the sides,
the respondent No.3 issued an order of exterment against the
petitioner on 04.03.2025.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
objected to the said order on the following grounds, namely -
(a) That, the show cause notice is silent on the fact that the witnesses
are not willing to depose against the petitioner. The petitioner has
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash
Chaudhari vs. State [991 SCC OnLine Bom 186].
(b) That, the report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in no manner
elucidates that the petitioner is a threat to the public order,
furthermore, there is no justification as to how the respondents arrived
3 cr.wp.255.25-J.odt
at a conclusion that the petitioner is a threat to the public at large.
Hence, subjective satisfaction reached at by the externing authority
stands vitiated.
(c) That, the respondents had initiated similar proceedings against
the petitioner in 2023, which came to be quashed by this Court vide
order dated 23.10.2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 636/2023.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that to pass an
order of externment, there should be reasonable material on record to
show that such person is a habitual offender and the petitioner has not
been convicted in any of the offences levelled against him by the
concerned Court, hence, the petitioner holds a clean record. It was
further submitted by the petitioner that stale offences have been taken
into consideration in order to pass the externment order against the
petitioner.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that the grounds raised by the learned Counsel
for the petitioner are without any merit and the externment order has
been properly passed by following the procedure as provided in the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Respondents submit that the
4 cr.wp.255.25-J.odt
petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to challenge the
impugned externment order under Section 60 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, making this writ petition not maintainable.
7. The Respondents further submitted that despite taking
preventive actions against the petitioner, two more criminal cases came
to be registered against him vide First Information Report Nos.
44/2025 and 45/2025. Moreover, it is the stance of the Respondents
that even though the Writ Petition against the petitioner was quashed
in 2023, his criminal activities have not come to a halt. Hence, the
respondents contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and
there is a threat to the lives of the people in the vicinity due to which
no one is willing to come forward to depose against him.
8. Heard both the learned Counsel for the parties.
9. On perusal of the externment order passed by the authority,
it appears that considering the earlier 8 offences and the prohibitory
action taken against the petitioner, the order is passed. In earlier
externment order the said 8 offences were considered and the
externment order was set aside by this Court on 23.10.2023.
10. Two offences vide Crime No.44/2025 under Sections
115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 296, 351(2), 49, 127(2) and 324 of the
5 cr.wp.255.25-J.odt
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Crime No.45/2025 under Sections
189(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with
Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are registered on
20.02.2025 and two statements of the witnesses are considered for
passing the said externment order. Though the statements of witnesses
are considered while passing the externment order, the said witnesses
have filed their affidavit on record stating that they have not given any
statement and the statements which are used are not their statements
as the signature on blank paper was taken from both the witnesses, and
said statements are used for passing the externment order of the
petitioner. On the contrary, in the affidavit, they have stated that the
petitioner is a good person, he is a social worker and no complaint has
been received by the Sarpanch of Bhadrawati, who is the witness A.
Both the witnesses have stated about his good character, therefore,
except these two crimes, nothing is on record to pass the externment
order. Said two offences are the offences against one company as the
petitioner had run a procession of some farmers for giving them their
rights.
11. In the externment order, the acquittal in 5 offences out of 8
offences is considered by the Authority - Additional Collector. The
other offences are already considered in earlier order and the said
externment order is already set aside by this Court. As no material is
6 cr.wp.255.25-J.odt
found to pass the externment order, it is necessary to set aside the
order passed on 04.03.2025. We, therefore, pass the following order :
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the
respondent No.3 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Warora, District
Chandrapur is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/05/2025 10:06:57
