Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hardeep Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
W.P. No. 4253/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT
INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
W.P. No. 4253 of 2021
(Hardeep Singh S/o. Amreek Singh V/s. State of M.P.)
Date: 08.04.2021 :
Petitioner by Shri Bharat Yadav, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri Pradyumna Kibe, Panel
Advocate.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and
with the help of record, the writ petition is heard finally.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition being
aggrieved by the externment order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the
District Magistrate, Indore and appellate order dated 26.1.2021
passed by the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore by which has
been directed to leave the territory of District Indore and nearby
districts viz. Ujjain, Dhar, Dewas, Khargone and Khandwa for the
period of six months.
Superintendent of Police (SP) - East, District Indore vide
letter dated 15.10.2020 requested the District Magistrate, Indore for
initiation of proceedings u/s. 5(a) and (b) of Madhya Pradesh Rajya
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Adhiniyam, 1990") against the petitioner. In the aforesaid letter, the
SP gave the details of 7 criminal cases registered against the
petitioner from the period Yr 2013 to Yr 2020 and pleaded that
because of his criminal activities and nuisance in the society,
witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him and
his movement or Act may cause danger or harm to the person or
property.
Vide order dated 15.10.2020, the District Magistrate has
- : 2 :-
W.P. No. 4253/2021
registered the Case No.267/2020 against the petitioner. After
recording the statement of Ashraf Ali Ansaari, Sub Inspector, Police
Station Lasudia, Indore, learned Magistrate has directed issuance of
show cause notice to the petitioner. On 21.10.2020 the petitioner
appeared through counsel and filed the detailed reply and the
District Magistrate fixed the case on 22.10.2020 for arguments. The
arguments were heard on 22.10.2020 and the case was closed for
judgment. By recording satisfaction, the District Magistrate vide
order dated 28.10.2020 has directed the petitioner to leave the
territory of Indore and nearby districts viz. Ujjain, Dhar, Khargone,
Dewas and Khandwa within a period of 24 hours and for the period
of six months restrained him to enter the above areas without
permission from the Court.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Indore u/s. 9 of the
Adhiniyam, 1990. Vide order dated 25.1.2021, learned
Commissioner has dismissed the appeal summarily and maintained
the order of externment dated 28.10.2020 passed by the District
Magistrate, hence the present petition before this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
The details of the criminal cases registered against the
petitioner from 2013 to 2020 as per the report by the Collectorate
are as under :
S.N Police Crime Year Offence u/s. Status of the
o. Station No. case.
1 Lasudia 3 2007 379 of IPC Acquitted.
2 Lasudia 398 2012 327, 323, 294, Compromise
506, 34 of IPC. d.
3 Lasudia 805 2012 452, 294, 323, Compromise
506, 34 of IPC d.
4 Lasudia 104 2014 341, 323, 294, Compromise
506, 34 of IPC. d.
- : 3 :-
W.P. No. 4253/2021
5 Lasudia 857 2014 147, 148, 144, Compromise
294, 506, 427, 188 d.
of IPC.
6 Lasudia 1115 2018 294, 506, 341, 34 Pending.
of IPC.
It is clear from the aforesaid report that out of six cases, five have
been disposed of by acquitting the petitioner and only one case i.e.
Case No.1115/2018 is pending. The petitioner was subjected to the
prohibitory proceedings seven times, the details of which are as
under :
S.No. Case No. Sections. Remark
1 82/2013 42(2), 110 of Cr.P.C. Lasudia.
2 36/2014 42(2), 110 of Cr.P.C. Lasudia.
3 86/2014 42(2), 110 of Cr.P.C. Lasudia.
4 172/2018 110 of Cr.P.C. Lasudia.
5 50/2018 110 of Cr.P.C. Lasudia.
6 72/2019 110 of Cr.P.C. Lasudia.
7 220/2020 110 of Cr.P.C. Lasudia.
In the reply, the petitioner submitted that he was subjected to the
proceedings of externment vide Case No.38/2013. At that time, only
5 criminal cases were registered against him. Considering the record
of the petitioner, vide order dated 5.3.2014 he was directed to
furnish the bond of Rs.10,000/-.
After 2014, only one criminal case has been registered
against the petitioner in the year 2018 and that too u/s. 294, 506, 341
and 34 of the IPC. When the petitioner had already been subjected to
the proceedings of externment in the year 2014, therefore, the cases
registered from the year 2007 to 2014 were not liable to be
considered for passing the order of externment and that too on the
basis of one criminal case registered in the year 2018. From 2018 till
passing of the impugned order, not a single case has been registered
- : 4 :-
W.P. No. 4253/2021
against the petitioner.
In the present case, the petitioner has been externed for a
period of six months in exercise of powers conferred u/s. 5(a) of the
Adhiniyam, 1990. Selction 5(a) is reproduced below :
"5. Removal of persons about to commit
offence. - Whenever it appears to the District
Magistrate-
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are
causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to
person or property, or ....."
As per Section 5(a), an order can be passed under this provision that
the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to
cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Only based on
one case registered from 2014 till 2018 it cannot be said that the
petitioner is a hardened criminal and his presence or movement in
the District Indore would cause harm to person or property
In the present case, the impugned order is unsustainable
in law because of the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate.
The SP sent letter dated 15.10.2020 which was registered as Case
No.267/2020 and the said case was put up before the Magistrate on
the same day. He recorded the statement of Sub Inspector and
recorded its satisfaction that there is a possibility of disturbance of
public peace and administration amongst the public and earlier
proceedings of prohibition have become ineffective. After recording
the statement of Sub Inspector, the District Magistrate issued the
show-cause notice to the petitioner. He appeared along with the
reply on 21.10.2020 and the matter was put up on the next day and
arguments were heard and the impugned order was passed. No
person from the general public has been examined before the
District Magistrate to depose that there is a likelihood of harm or
danger to him or his property. Learned District Magistrate has
recorded the finding that on the basis of the evidence, the petitioner
- : 5 :-
W.P. No. 4253/2021
is still involved in the criminal activities and there are six criminal
cases registered against him. Repeatedly, the Division Bench and
Single Bench of this Court have held in the number of writ petitions
that merely the registration of criminal cases against a person cannot
be a basis for suspension of his fundamental rights under the
provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1990. In the present case, out of six
cases, five cases have already been considered in the earlier
proceedings from 2007 to 2013 and thereafter, from 2014 till 2020,
only one case has been registered against him that too u/s. 294, 506,
341 and 34 of the IPC. Therefore, on the basis of only one criminal
case and 7 times prohibitory proceedings from 2013 to 2020 he has
been externed for a period of six months. Hence, the impugned
order is unsustainable in law, which does not meet the requirement
of Section 5(a) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. Surprisingly, the appellate
authority i.e. the Commissioner, Indore Division has also not
considered the aforesaid grounds. Therefore, said order is also liable
to be set aside. It is not necessary to pass an order of externment for
6 months or one year under section 5 (a) or (b) mechanically. In a
given fact and circumstances order under section 3 or 4 of the
Adhiniyam 1990 could be passed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 28.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate,
Indore and appellate order dated 26.1.2021 passed by the
Commissioner, Indore Division are hereby set aside.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.04.14 16:04:44 +05'30'
