Dismissed

Salman Mohammad Gaus Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Apr 2018WP/479/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act. The Court upheld the impugned orders, finding no infirmity as the Externing Authority acted on subjective satisfaction regarding threats to the locality and balanced the period of externment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders of externment and dismissal of appeal upheld.

Salman Mohammad Gaus Shaikh Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶2

1 / 8

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.479 OF 2018

¶5

Salman Mohammad Gaus Shaikh .... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr.A.P. Tajane, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 11^th APRIL, 2018.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner has

¶11

challenged the order dated 07/08/2017, passed by the Respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Pune City. By the said order the Respondent No.4 had externed the Petitioner from the limits of Pune City Commmissionerate Area and Pune District for a period of one year. The Petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Respondent No.3, who is the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. By the order dated 16/11/2017, the

¶12

Nesarikar

¶13

2 / 8 WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶14

Respondent No.3 has dismissed the Petitioner's Appeal challenging the order of externment passed by the Respondent No.2.

¶15

The Petitioner is a resident of Khadki, Pune. He was served with a notice dated 09/02/2017 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Khadki Zone, Pune, u/s 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. By the said notice, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed out of the limits of Pune Commissionerate Area and Pune District for the period of two years. The said notice contained the list of offences against the Petitioner, as well as the previous proceedings taken against him, which were in the nature of preventive action. In the said notice there is a reference to the statements of two witnesses, which were recorded in-camera. These two statements are in respect of the incidents dated 14/01/2017 and 20/01/2007 involving the present Petitioner and wherein those two witnesses were the victims. The show cause notice mentioned that the offences

¶16

3 / 8 WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶17

under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code were pending against the Petitioner and his acts were causing alarm, harm and danger to the person and property of the people in the locality.

¶18

After the said proceeding initiated pursuant to the notice u/s 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, were concluded, the Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 07/08/2017. The Respondent No.2 mentioned in the said order that in the past, there were six offences registered against the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 showed awareness, that, out of these offences, the Petitioner was acquitted in two offences. The list shows that two offences i.e. C.R.No.237/16 registered u/s 324, 506 (II), r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 4 r/w 25 of the Indian Arms Act and u/s 37(1) r/w 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, as well as C.R.No.262/16 registered u/s 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, were pending in the Courts. These two offences were registered at Khadki Police Station. In fact all the offences mentioned in the order were registered at Khadki

¶19

4 / 8 WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶20

Police Station, Pune. The impugned externment order further makes reference to the two in-camera statements. The Externing Authority has recorded subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to extern the Petitioner from the limits of Pune Commisionerate Area and District Pune, for a period of one year. Before passing the order, the Externing Authority has taken into account the submissions made by the Petitioner, which is also reflected from the said Externment Order.

¶21

The Petitioner had challenged the Externment Order by preferring the Appeal u/s 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, i.e. the Respondent No.3 herein. The order dated 16/11/2017 passed by the Respondent No.3 shows that the said Appellate Authority had taken into account the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. After considering the impugned Externment Order and the submissions of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.3 dismissed the Appeal.

¶22

We have heard learned Counsel Mr.A.B.Tajane for the

¶23

5 / 8 WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶24

Petitioner and Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶25

Mr.Tajane submitted that all the offences were registered only at Khadki Police Station, but the Petitioner was externed out of the limits of Pune Police Commissionerate and Pune District. Hence, according to him, the Externment Order was excessive and was liable to be set aside. He further submitted that out of the six offences, the Petitioner was acquitted in two offences. The offences i.e. C.R.No.3041/14 and 3084/16 were not registered under the IPC and therefore could not be the basis for passing of the Externment Order. He further submitted that the Externing Authroity had directed the Petitioner to report to the Officer In-charge of the nearest Police Station, where he was staying after having removed himself pursuant to the Externment Order. Mr.Tajane submitted that passing of such directions was overreaching the Externing Authority's powers and he could not have passed such directions.

¶26

WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶27

6 / 8

¶28

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.Deshmukh supported the impugned orders. She submitted that the Respondents have properly passed the impugned orders and there was no infirmity in these orders. She submitted that looking at the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner, it was necessary to pass such orders and therefore this Court should not interfere with them.

¶29

Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity. The Externing Authority has shown awareness that in two offences, the Petitioner was acquitted. However, there were other offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, committed by the Petitioner. The statements recorded incamera show that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to put forth their grievance before the authorities. The Externing Authority has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the Petitioner were causing alarm, harm and

¶30

7 / 8 WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶31

danger in the minds of the people in the locality. The Externing Authority has reduced the period of externment from two years, as mentioned in the show cause notice, to the period of one year. We find that the approach of the Externing Authority was balanced and the Petitioner was given full opportunity to make proper representation. We do not agree with the submissions of Mr.Tajane that the Externing Authority could not have directed the Petitioner to report to the nearest Police Station from the place where he was residing after removing himself from the locality, as directed by the Externing Authority. This condition can be said to be a proper check on the activities of the Petitioner, after his removal from Pune District and Pune Commissionerate Area. This condition not only safeguards the people in the locality where he resides after his externment, but also ensures that the Petitioner does not enter the area from which is externed. We do not find this condition to be unreasonable. Since the Petitioner is externed out of Pune Commissionerate Area and Pune District only, we do not think this order is excessive.

¶32

8 / 8 WP-479-18-CD.odt

¶33

Even the Appellate Authority has considered all the submissions of the Petitioner and has properly decided the Appeal by a reasoned order. The Appellate Authority has considered the scope of exercise of powers u/s 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(b) of Maharashtra Police Act. The Appellate Authority has considered the rival submissions in the light of the provisions of Maharashtra Police Act. We do not find any infirmity in the Appellate Authority's order.

¶34

For the reasons as aforesaid, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition and hence the Petition is dismissed.

¶35

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Salman Mohammad Gaus Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman Mohammad Gaus Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Ganpat Arvarekar and Ors. Vs Smt. Aruna Vijay Parab and Anr.

Chetan v. Nisar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Faheem Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran Govind More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Angad Rambhau Jadhavar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Dinkar More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.