Taukeeir Ahmed Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3167 Chatt

                                  1

                                                                 AFR

     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WPCR No. 78 of 2022

      Taukeeir Ahmed Khan S/o Late Salauddin Khan Aged About
      37 Years R/o Risdi, Police Station Kotwali, District- Korba,
      Chhattisgarh.                               --- Petitioner

                               Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary Department of
      Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
      Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh.

   2. District Magistrate Korba Rampur Road, Rampur, Korba,
      District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

   3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Katghora Tehsil Premises Katghora
      Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

   4. State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer Police
      Station Balco Nagar District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                --- Respondents

For the Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

02 .05.2022

1. The instant petition is against the order dated 01.09.2021

passed by the District Magistrate, Korba whereby the

externment/restriction order was passed against the

petitioner to enter Korba and other border districts for a

period of one year, which was affirmed in appeal by the State

on 06.12.2021 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

order of externment was passed against the petitioner on the

ground that 7 cases under IPC are to the credit of the

petitioner, however, the authority acting under the

Chattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 (4 of 1991)

failed to take into account that the petitioner was already

acquitted in those cases. It is stated that only on the basis

of single complaint made in 2021 by one Krishna Swami,

Sr.Manager of Feed-back Power, communication was made

by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate and

on that sole ground the D.M. has exercised the power u/s

5(b) of the Act 1990.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the orders

of acquittal would show that the petitioner's conduct was fair

and as such, the order of externment should not have been

passed only on surmises that too on the ground which was

not existing before the District Magistrate. He placed reliance

in Krishna Datt Upadhyay Versus State of Chhattisgarh 2003

SCC OnLine Chh 73 and contends that the order of

externment takes away the rights of the petitioner under

Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the arguments

and would submit that there were 7 criminal cases to the

credit of petitioner and that apart, 5-6 prohibitory acts were

reported against him under sections 107, 116(3) & 110

Cr.P.C., and after giving opportunity of being heard and

considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the

order was passed. He would submit that even thereafter he

did not restrain from involving such activities and posed a

threat to the Society.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

gone through the documents annexed to the petition. A

perusal of the record would show that initially the petitioner

was served with a show cause notice, which would show that

initially a communication was made by the concerned SHO to

the Superintendent of Police on 25.05.2021 explaining the

number of cases wherein the petitioner was involved. The

S.P., after examination of facts reported the matter to the

District Magistrate by Annexure P-4 dated 27.05.2020.

Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner

by Annexure P-5. The record would show that copy of

summons were issued but it was revealed by the mother that

the petitioner had gone out with family as such it was served

to the family member of the petitioner and it was held to be

duly served. Thereafter, the proceeding u/s 8 was initiated

to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order

sheet of the hearing would show that it commenced on

02.06.2020 and he was heard and eventually proceedings

came to be concluded on 01.09.2021 wherein the

externment order dated Annexure P-1 was passed whereby

the entry of petitioner from Korba and border districts i.e.,

Janjgir Champa, Bilaspur, Raigarh, Koriya, Surguja, Mungeli,

Gaurela-Pendra-Marawahi was restricted for a period of one

year. The said order having been challenged u/s 9 of the

Act by filing appeal before the State Government, the same

was affirmed.

6. On behalf of the petitioner it has been stated that in all the

criminal cases, he has been acquitted. The copies of

judgments passed in criminal cases are placed on record.

Perusal of record in respect of (i) Criminal Case No.22/2010

would show that the allegation was made that the petitioner

has assaulted a Government Officer on 16.11.2007 wherein

the Court observed that the charges were not proved for

want of proper evidence and benefit of doubt was granted to

the petitioner.

(ii) Likewise in Criminal case No.405/2010 which was

decided on 2nd January 2014 wherein the allegation was that

he along with others forcibly entered into the premises of

one Laxmin Bai and started cutting the trees. Having

objected the said act, she was abused and assaulted. In that

case, except few witnesses, others have turned hostile.

However, the Court found him guilty of offence u/s 427 &

506(1) IPC while acquitting him of charge u/s 294 of IPC and

instead of jail sentence, fine was imposed.

(iii) Another Criminal Case No.415/20 was decided on 1st

February, 2014 wherein the allegation against him is that he

entered into a public cultural programme and created havoc

by ransacking and assaulting the people present there and

further damaged the property. Here also, the trial Court held

that the offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt

thereby no clear acquittal was granted and benefit of doubt

was the ground of acquittal.

(iv) In Criminal Case No.443/2010 the allegation was that

the petitioner along with 3 others intercepted a truck and

assaulted the driver. In this case, because of failure of

prosecution to produce the witnesses, the right of

prosecution to lead evidence was closed and benefit of doubt

was granted to the petitioner, as such, he was acquitted.

Therefore, in this case too acquittal in actual sense was not

granted.

(v) In Criminal Case No.252/2011 which was decided on 5th

March, 2012 the allegation was made by one Manish Kumar,

who is a Govt. Officer that the petitioner and others entered

into the office and abused him and thereafter the accused

hurled abuses at one Sangeeta Marco, who is the colleague

and at that time when Manish Kumar came to her rescue,

they were also abused and assaulted. In this case, the

witnesses have turned hostile, as such, he was acquitted.

(vi) In yet another case No.185/2011 which was decided on

5th March, 2012, the report was made by one private person

with an allegation that the petitioner entered into the office,

abused and assaulted one Aadesh Kumar Jain and caused

damage to the property. In this case also, the independent

witnesses turned hostile.

(vii) Lastly, one complaint was made by the Manager of

Feedback Power on 05.08.2021 and in pursuance, the

communication was made by the concerned S.H.O., to the

Superintendent of Police that one Krishna Swami, Manager of

the Feedback Power Company was assaulted. Apart from

these cases, the communication further reflect that further 5

to 6 cases under sections 107, 116(3) CrPC were to the

credit of the petitioner, which were in the nature of

prohibitory orders.

7. If the petitioner has to his credit the number of enlisted

cases, then balancing the right of the public at large of

Society to have free fearless atmosphere would be a prime

factor which cannot be ignored as against the rights of the

petitioner. Though it has been stated that the petitioner was

acquitted of the cases, but the inception of cases against the

petitioner would demonstrate the gravity of charges against

him and would lead to show the activity mutated from one

to other. The public at large cannot be expected to face real

life drama at unexpected places time and again. The nature

of acquittals in criminal cases also speaks a loud. The state

has passed the order of externment considering the conduct

of petitioner with an idea of reforming the society. It is

obvious that serving certain problem requires multi-

prolonged approach to balance the twin need i.e., the right of

public at large and that of petitioner. Externment orders are

passed to control anti-social elements under the State Laws,

which provide for specific orders for their inter-state as well

as intra-state for a certain period of time. The power for

such removal has been conferred to administrative

authorities, specially to District Magistrates and City

Commissioners whereby liberty of an individual is put to

reasonable bounds for larger good. Therefore, considering

the nature of past conduct coupled with fresh report made

against the petitioner, which may be a turbulence alert, the

order passed by the District Magistrate and the order passed

by the State for the safety of general public at large would

hold the sway over the individual right of the petitioner as

article 21 would be subject to the law of land.

8. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the petition has no

merit and is dismissed.

Sd/-

GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

Rao