Bombay High Court
Mohammad Atique Mohammad Tamjeed ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police And ... on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9610
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 324/2024
...
Mohammad Atique Mohammad Tamjeed Qureshi,
Aged 35 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Gawalipura, Ratanganj, Amravati,
Tq. & District Amravati.
... PETITIONER
--VERSUS--
1] Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-1, Amravati,
Tq. & District Amravati.
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Shreya Bhagat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2025.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated
18/07/2023 and 07/11/2023. The petitioner was externed by
the Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati.
The basis for passing the order is reflected from the order dated
18/07/2023 passed by Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Amravati, which states that as many as 7 offences are
registered against the petitioner either under the provisions of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, or the
Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the offences registered against the petitioner cannot form the
basis for externing the petitioner, as the offences are registered
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
either under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, or
the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The provisions
of both these Acts do not fall under Section 56(1)(b) of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Secondly, she submits that only
on the basis of in-camera statements, the respondent No.2
could not have arrived at subjective satisfaction. Merely
referring to the recording of two statements would not be
sufficient, and that there should be proper application of mind
to them. However, the order does not reflect that the concerned
officer has duly applied his mind. Therefore, the act of the
petitioner does not fall under Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently
submits that the petitioner's activities are continuous. He is a
habitual offender involved in animal slaughtering and is
engaged in the business of buying and selling animals. He
further submits that the two in-camera statements recorded by
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
the Police Inspector have been duly verified by the S.D.P.O.,
Zone-1, Amravati. The order passed by the Respondent No.1 is
a reasoned order and considering the petitioner's activities,
Respondent No.1 has rightly passed the externment order. The
learned A.P.P. further submits that even in the appeal, the
petitioner has failed, and by a detailed order, the Respondent
No.2 has rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioner.
Therefore, he prayed for rejection of the present petition.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers on record. Having examined the original record, it
appears from the order that total seven offences were registered
between the year 2016 to 2023, which has been taken into
consideration by the Respondent No.1. Admittedly, the offences
are registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, 1960, and the Maharashtra Animal Preservation
Act, 1976.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
6. It would be necessary to refer to Section 56 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. Section 56 reads thus:-
"56. Removal of persons about to commit offence.
1] Whenever it shall appear in Brihan Mumbai
and other areas for which a Commissioner has been
appointed under Sec. 7 to the Commissioner and in
other area or areas to which State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions
of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub.
Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State
Government in that behalf-
(a) that the movements or acts of any person
are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or
harm to person or property, or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is engaged or is about to be
engaged in the commission of an offence involving
force or violence or an offence punishable under
Chapters XII, XVI, or XVII of the Indian Penal Code
(XLV of 1860), or in the abetment of any such offence,
and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are
not willing to come forward to give evidence in public
against such person by reason of apprehension on
their part as regards the safety of their person or
property, or ......"
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
7. Considering the requirements under Section 56(1)
(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, it is evident
that the movements or acts of any person should cause or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or
property. It is further required that offences to be taken into
consideration should fall under Chapters XII, XVI, or XVII of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further requirement is that, witnesses
are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public
against such person by reason of apprehension on their part, as
regards safety of their person or property.
8. Considering the purport of Section 56, it is
abundantly clear that, the activities attributed to the petitioner
do not fall under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The
offences registered against the petitioner under the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, or the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976, cannot form the basis to extern the
petitioner. It is further pertinent to note that, stale offences
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
have been taken into consideration. Additionally, some offences
are still shown to be under investigation, despite having been
registered in 2021 and 2022.
9. It would be useful to refer to the Judgment delivered
in Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad VS The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
2024 ALL MR(Cri) 1675, wherein it has been held that offences
which are still under investigation cannot be considered for the
purpose of externment. Secondly, it would be necessary that the
stale offences which are registered long back and admittedly
has lost the live link or snapped live link cannot be said to be
sufficient to extern the petitioner. Paragraph No.19 of Imtiyaz
Hussain Sayyad (supra), reads thus:-
"19. The situation which thus obtains is that the
externing authority had noted pendency of two cases
which did not satisfy the requirement of class of cases
stipulated by clause (b) and also considered the crimes
which were under investigation and chargesheet had not
been filed. It is trite, the crimes which are still under
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
investigation cannot be taken into consideration as
depending upon the outcome of the investigation, the
investigating agency may or may not send the accused
for trial. It is true, in one of the crimes, subsequently
chargesheet came to be filed. However, a submission
could be advanced that the chargesheet was filed with a
view to justify and support the order of externment.
Reliance placed by Mr. Gupta on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ganesh
Laxman Dhabale V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR
Online 2023 Bom 231 appears to be well founded."
10. Insofar as the in-camera statements are concerned,
merely referring that the two in-camera statements have been
recorded and the respondent No. 1 have perused the same is in
itself not sufficient. It is necessary that the order reflects how
the statements are sufficient to justify the externment of the
petitioner. Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is no
indication of subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Respondent No. 1.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
11. As was submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, although an enquiry under Section 59 of the
Maharashtra Police Act was conducted by the S.D.P.O.,
wherein, the petitioner had filed a reply stating that the
proceedings against him has been stopped under Section 258 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, still both the Authorities have
taken this offence into consideration. This fact, in itself,
demonstrates the lack of proper application of mind by the
authorities.
12. Insofar as the Appeal is concerned, the Appellate
Authority, as discussed hereinabove, has also failed to consider
this aspect. Therefore, both the Authorities have erred in not
properly examining the applicability of Section 56(1)(a) and
(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, particularly in view of
the fact that the offences are registered under the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Maharashtra Animal
Preservation Act, 1976.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 7-Cr.WP-324-2024
13. In this view of the matter, the order dated
18/07/2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Amravati, and the order dated 07/11/2023 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, are hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
