Quashed

Santshri Baba Maha Hansaji Maharaj v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Mar 2017WP/318/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition challenging an order restricting the petitioner's entry into Yawal Taluka under Section 144(2) CrPC. The court held the order harsh and disproportionate, quashed it for failing to justify emergent circumstances, though denied further relief as the ban period had expired.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.02.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faijpur, quashed and set aside. No relief granted as the period of prevention had already elapsed.

Santshri Baba Maha Hansaji Maharaj Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

318.17WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 318 OF 2017

¶5

Santshri Baba Maha Hansaji Maharaj
Age : 40 years, Occ : Social Work &
Spiritual promotion,
R/o Sant Kutiya, Manu Devi Road,
Satpuda Jangal Parisar, Aadgaon,
Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faijpur Division, Faijpur, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶10

3. Police Inspector, Yawal Police Station, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶11

 ..RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Advocate for petitioner : Mr.N.B. Narwade
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &

¶16

 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 23rd February, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd March, 2017

¶17

JUDGMENT : (PER S.S. SHINDE, J)

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

¶19

and heard finally with the consent of the

¶20

318.17WP

¶21

¶22

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

2.This Criminal Writ Petition is filed
with the following prayer :-

¶24

B. That, by issuing appropriate writ or
direction in the like nature, the order
passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Faijpur, Division, Faijpur, Tq. Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon in proceeding bearing
outward No.DANDPR/144 (5)/ETPL/2017/
2/148/91 dated 18.02.2017 may kindly be
quashed and set aside.

¶25

3.It is the case of the petitioner

¶26

that, on 9th February, 2017, respondent no.2 –
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faijpur Division,
Faijpur had passed the order invoking powers

¶27

under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, whereby the present petitioner is
prevented from entering in the revenue
jurisdiction of Yawal Taluka, Dist. Jalgaon.
On 11th February, 2017, the petitioner filed

¶28

318.17WP

¶29

¶30

his say/objection but same has not been
considered. It is the case of the petitioner
that, on 13th February, 2017, the petitioner
filed the proceedings under Section 144(5) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, but as the
respondents authorities were not taking any
decision in the said proceedings, and as the
period from 14thFebruary, 2017 to 23rd
February, 2017 is lapsing, hence the
petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition
No.281/2017 before this Court and this Court
disposed of the said Petition on 17th
February, 2017 with direction to respondent
no.2 to decide the said proceedings initiated
by the petitioner. On 18th February, 2017,
the proceeding filed by the petitioner under
Section 144(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure
came to be dismissed. Hence this Criminal
Writ Petition.

¶31

4.The learned counsel appearing for

¶32

318.17WP

¶33

¶34

the petitioner submits that, the order passed
by respondent no.2 under Section 144(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is without
taking into consideration the fact that, out
of four crimes registered against the
petitioner in two crimes being Crime
No.9/2008 and Crime No.40/2013, the

¶35

petitioner is already acquitted. The learned
counsel submits that, respondent no.2
without applying his mind has passed the
order dated 18th February, 2017 as while
passing the said order, respondent no.2 has
considered the crime registered against the

¶36

petitioner at Chopda Police Station. The
learned counsel submits that, the only one
crime i.e. Crime No.119/2016 is registered
against the petitioner in Yawal Police

¶37

Station and the same is pending and
therefore, on the basis of the same, the
petitioner cannot be prevented from entering
in the revenue jurisdiction of Yawal taluka.

¶38

318.17WP

¶39

¶40

The learned counsel submits that, respondent
no.2 has passed the said impugned order
without taking into consideration the fact
that, there is no danger to the life, health,
safety or peace and tranquility of public due
to the activities of the petitioner. The
learned counsel submits that, due to passing
of order dated 18.02.2017, the fundamental
rights of the petitioner have been infringed
and his right of freedom of movement is also
affected. The learned counsel submits that,
the petitioner is the President of Non-
Government Organization namely, “Jungle

¶41

Bachav Sanstha” and also President of Committee namely " संयुकत वन वयवसथापन सिमती” (J.F.M.). The learned counsel further submitted that, the impugned order thereby preventing the petitioner from entering in

¶42

the revenue jurisdiction of Yawal Taluka for
the period of 14.02.2017 to 23.02.2017, is
too harsh and excessive as the freedom of

¶43

318.17WP

¶44

¶45

movement of the petitioner is restricted and
hence the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the Petition
deserves to be allowed.

¶46

5.On the other hand, the learned

¶47

A.P.P. appearing for the State, relying upon

¶48

the reasons assigned in the impugned orders
and also the original record, submits that,

¶49

the order passed by the authority is in
accordance with the provisions of Section
144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶50

There are four offences registered against

¶51

the petitioner. The petitioner's presence
during the elections of Zilla Parishad will
cause disturbance for maintaining the public

¶52

order. He is history-sheeter. He creates

¶53

terror in the vicinity, and therefore, there
is fear in the mind of the people residing at
village Aadgaon and nearby villages.

¶54

318.17WP

¶55

¶56

6.We have heard the learned counsel

¶57

appearing for the petitioner and the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondents at
length. With their able assistance, we have
perused the pleadings in the Petition,
grounds taken therein, annexures thereto,
reasons assigned by the respondent no.2, the
original record, the provisions of Section
144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and

¶58

the judgments cited across the bar by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
namely the judgment of Karnataka High Court

¶59

in case of Pramod Muthalik V/s District

¶60

Magistrate, Davanagere1and the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of

¶61

Karnataka and another V/s Dr. Praveen Bhal

¶62

Thogadia2relied upon by the learned A.P.P.

¶63

7.It appears from the reply filed by
the respondent authorities before the Sub-

¶64

1 2003(3) Crimes 510

¶65

2 AIR 2004 SC 2081

¶66

318.17WP

¶67

¶68

Divisional Officer, Faizpur in proceeding
bearing outward No.DANDPRA/144 (2)/ETPL/2017/
2/148/28 that, village Aadgaon is sensitive
village. Earlier there were riots and
offences registered against the petitioner.
The petitioner has indulged in criminal
activities in past. There is a fear in the

¶69

mind of the people residing in village
Aadgaon and nearby villages. Nobody is ready
to depose against him, and therefore, the
petitioner was prevented from entering in
Yawal Tahsil from 14.02.2017 to 23.02.2017.
According to the respondents, the respondent
authorities invoked the provisions of sub-

¶70

section (2) of Section 144 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and passed the exparte

¶71

order thereby preventing the petitioner for a

¶72

period of 10 days from entering in Yawal
Tahsil. Upon careful perusal of the original

¶73

record maintained by the respondents, there
are no reasons disclosed in the impugned

¶74

318.17WP

¶75

¶76

order that, the situation was so emergent,
and therefore, preventing the petitioner from
entering in Yawal Tahsil was warranted by
invoking the sub-section (2) of Section 144
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears
from careful perusal of the order passed by

¶77

the respondent no.2 that, the blanket order
preventing the petitioner from entering Yawal
taluka is passed, which appears to be harsh,
excessive and disproportionate to the need.

¶78

It is true that, the record shows that the
four offences were registered against the
petitioner and out of four offences, he is

¶79

already acquitted of two offences. One
offence, which is pending is of the year 2008
and other offence is registered in the month

¶80

of November, 2016. There are no reasons
assigned by the authorities in the order
dated 9th February, 2017 that, the situation

¶81

was so emergent and did not admit the
compliance of the principles of natural

¶82

318.17WP

¶83

¶84

justice since before passing the order

¶85

preventing the petitioner from entering in
Yawal Tahsil. At this juncture, it would be
useful to make reference to the judgment of

¶86

the Karnataka High Court in the case of

¶87

Pramod Muthalik (supra). In that case, the
Karnataka High Court has considered the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case
of Mahonar Gajanan Joshi V/s S.B. Kulkarni
and others3and the judgment of the Supreme

¶88

Court in the case of Rupinder Singh Sodhi and
another Vs. Union of India and others4 and
reached to the conclusion in para 12, which
reads as under :-

¶89

“12.Assumingforthemoment
hypothetically that the visit of

¶90

petitioner is likely to create
communal tension by his inflammatory
public speeches. The blanket order
debarring the petitioner from entering
the district of Davanagere appears to
betooharsh,excessiveand

¶91

3 1989 Cri.L.J. 1364

¶92

4 (1983) 1 SCC 140

¶93

318.17WP

¶94

¶95

disproportionate to the need. It is
evident from the order that by
inflammatoryspeechesofthe
petitioner, it is likely that communal
tension would build up resulting in
breachofpeaceandpublic
tranquility. If the act of delivering
public speeches is alone to be the
cause for the apprehended threat to
public peace only to the extent of
directing the petitioner not to
address public rallies could have been
a suffice solution. On the contrary,
debarring the petitioner from entering
the district for a period of one month
by a blanket order is too excessive.
The Magistrate without resorting to
the debarring of the petitioner from
enteringDavanagere,couldnot

¶96

directed the petitioner and all the
political orgnisations from holding
any rallies or meetings for sometime
in order to allow the event of murder
to die down in the memories of the
public.”

¶97

8.In the facts of present case, we are
of the opinion that, the ratio laid down in

¶98

318.17WP

¶99

¶100

the above two judgments is not followed by

¶101

the respondent authorities while passing the
impugned order of preventing the petitioner
from entering in Yawal Tahsil. In that view

¶102

of the matter, the inevitable conclusion is
that, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Faijpur, Division Faijpur cannot

¶103

sustain. Hence the impugned order dated 18th
February, 2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Faijpur Division, Faijpur is

¶104

quashed and set aside. Though we have
technically quashed and set aside the
impugned order, we are unable to grant any

¶105

relief to the petitioner since the period for
which the petitioner was prevented is already
over.

¶106

sga

Santshri Baba Maha Hansaji Maharaj v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santshri Baba Maha Hansaji Maharaj v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani Vs Sangita Balaji Dawre and Others

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani Vs Sangita Balaji Dawre and Others

Manohar Chimaji Chalak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwanath S/O Kondiba Vaidya and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalyan S/O Balaji Shrirame and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Khwaja Munawar Sultana and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.