Partly allowed

Vikesh @ Vicky Vitthalrao Deshattiwar v. the Divisional Commissioner Amravati,Amravati Division Amravati and 2 Others

Bombay HC26 Mar 2024WP/263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a two-year externment order from Yavatmal district confirmed on appeal under the Maharashtra Police Act. The court upheld the subjective satisfaction and the two-year period but found no recorded reasons for district-wide externment and modified it to Kelapur (Pandharkawada) taluka.

What did the court decide?

Externment order maintained but modified: petitioner externed from Kelapur (Pandharkawada) taluka only, for two years, instead of entire Yavatmal district.

Vikesh @ Vicky Vitthalrao Deshattiwar vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:9326

¶2

1 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 263 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER : Vikesh @ Vicky Vitthalrao Deshattiwar, Aged 42 years, Occu. Agriculturist and Reporter, R/o Ramdevbaba Layout, Pandharkawada, Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS : 1] The Divisional commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2] The Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandharkawada, Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal. 3] Police Station, Pandharkawada, Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal.

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. C. A. Babrekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. M. R. Kavimandan, A.P.P. for the non-applicant nos.1 to 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J. DATED : JULY 29, 2024.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

¶12

In this writ petition, challenge is to the order dated

¶13

2 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶14

29.08.2023 passed by respondent no.1 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by respondent no.2 – Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, externing the petitioner for two years from entire Yavatmal district, was confirmed.

¶15

Respondent no.2, on receipt of the report from the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pandharkawada, directed the SDPO to conduct necessary inquiry. Accordingly, the SDPO conducted the necessary inquiry and submitted his report to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 on receipt of the report, found that externment of the petitioner from entire Yavatmal district was necessary for two years. Respondent no.2 relied upon the following crimes and preventive actions against the petitioner to record the subjective satisfaction.

¶16

Sr. No.	Crime Nos.	Under Sections	Present position
1.	336/2023	435, 436, 143, 147, 149, 341, 379 of IPC and Under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984	Petitioner is convicted with 5 co-accused and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-.
2.	354/2017	353, 332, 294, 406, 427 of IPC	Subjudiced before Court.
3.	32/2018	353, 504, 506, 294, 186 of IPC	Subjudiced before Court.
4.	283/2019	186, 294, 506 of IPC	Subjudiced before Court.
5.	910/2022	294, 506 of IPC	Subjudiced before Court.
6.	337/2023	294, 506 of IPC	Subjudiced before Court.

¶17

3 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶18

7.	455/2023	353, 332, 294, 506 of IPC,	Subjudiced before Court.
		U/s 85(1) of Mah.Prohibition Act
		u/s 92(a)(b)(e) of the Rights of
		Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

¶19

Preventive Actions

¶20

Sr. No.	Istegasha No.	Under Sections	Status
1.	696/2022	107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C.	Undertaking for behaviour taken on 08	good .08.22
2.	328/2023	107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C.	Undertaking for behaviour taken on 11	good .04.23

¶21

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order of externment passed by the respondent no.2 and confirmed by respondent no.1 in appeal, is before this Court.

¶22

I have heard Mr. C. A. Babrekar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. M. R. Kavimandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Perused the record and proceedings.

¶23

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this case, reliance was placed on the stale crimes to form subjective satisfaction. Learned advocate submitted that an opportunity was not given to the petitioner to meet the statements of the confidential

¶24

4 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶25

witnesses. Learned advocate would submit that the petitioner was involved in false case by the Government officials because the petitioner was reporting the malpractices and wrongful acts committed by them while discharging their duties. Learned advocate submitted that in a crime at serial no.7, registered on 11.04.2023, the petitioner was assaulted. It is pointed out from the record that he had sustained fracture to his hand in the said incident. Learned advocate submitted that the material placed on record is not sufficient to accept the contention of the respondents that subjective satisfaction was recorded on proper consideration of the objective material. Learned advocate further submitted that the order directing the petitioner to remove himself out of Yavatmal district itself is excessive. No reasons have been recorded for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. It is pointed out that all the crimes relied upon to record the subjective satisfaction have been registered at Kelapur police station. Learned advocate submitted that even on the basis of subjective satisfaction, without recording specific reasons, the accused could have been externed from Kalapur taluka (which is also known as Pandharkawada) and not from entire Yavatmal district.

¶26

5 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶27

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

¶28

first notice issued to the petitioner by the SDPO is dated 20.06.2023. He was granted an opportunity to show cause to that notice. The said notice was replied by him. Learned APP pointed out that the second notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent no.2 on 05.07.2023. The said notice was not replied by the petitioner. Learned APP would submit that therefore, the grievance made by the petitioner at this stage that he was not granted an opportunity to meet the statements of the confidential witnesses, to which a reference was made in the notice and order, is not well founded. Learned APP further pointed out that on 11.04.2023 at 1.00 p.m., he had executed a bond for good behaviour in a preventive action case No. 328/2023 and in the night of 11.04.2023, he committed the offence at serial no.7. Learned APP submitted that the series of crimes committed by the petitioner is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Learned APP submitted that considering the activities and the crimes committed by the petitioner against the property and against the human body, his externment out of Yavatmal district was fully justified.

¶29

I have carefully gone through the record and proceedings.

¶30

6 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶31

The statements of confidential witnesses were recorded by the SDPO. After submission of the report of the inquiry by the SDPO, Kelapur, respondent no.2 issued a notice dated 05.07.2023 to the petitioner. The notice was duly served upon the petitioner. The petitioner did not reply the said notice. Perusal of the notice dated 05.07.2023 would show that the statements of the confidential witnesses were brought to the notice of the petitioner. Respondent no.2 has recorded in the impugned order that the statements were duly verified by her. The statements of the confidential witnesses dated 13.05.2023 are part of the record. I have perused those statements. The witnesses are from Kelapur. In their statements they have categorically stated about the unlawful activities and dangerous nature of the petitioner. Perusal of the statements would show that the statements were duly verified by respondent no.2. It is, therefore, apparent on the face of the record that the entire material produced before respondent no.2, including the statements of confidential witnesses, was duly considered and verified by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2, on the basis of the material on record, arrived at the subjective satisfaction to pass the order of externment against the petitioner.

¶32

It is not out of place to mention that in the crime at serial no.1,

¶33

7 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶34

the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced. The sentence has been suspended. The crimes at serial nos.2, 3 and 4 are subjudiced before the Court. The petitioner has been acquitted in the crimes at serial nos.5 and 6 at the fag end of the proceedings before respondent no.2. As far as crime at serial no.7 is concerned, it was registered on 11.04.2023. Perusal of the notice and the order passed by respondent no.2 would show that first chapter proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in 2022 being case No. 696/2022. It is undisputed that on 08.08.2022, after inquiry in the said chapter proceeding, the petitioner was directed to execute a bond for good behaviour. He executed the bond on 08.08.2022. It needs to be stated that such a bond for good behaviour has to be executed for a period not exceeding one year. Similarly, second chapter case being case No. 328/2023 was registered against the petitioner. In the said case as well, after inquiry he was directed to execute the bond for good behaviour. The petitioner has executed the bond on 11.04.2023 at 1.00 p.m. The crime at serial No.7 was registered against him on 11.04.2023 at 11.30 p.m. in the night. The crime chart and the chart of preventive actions would suggest that the activities and behaviour of the petitioner was squarely covered under section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶35

8 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶36

The petitioner, despite executing the bonds for good behaviour, was engaged in commission of similar offences. His movements and acts, as can be seen from the record, had caused alarm, danger and harm to the persons and property. Perusal of the record would, therefore, show that there is no merit in the submission that stale crimes were relied upon to pass the order of externment. The material on record, in my view, was sufficient to record subjective satisfaction as has been done by respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 while deciding the appeal has taken all these aspects into consideration.

¶37

The next important issue is whether the order is excessive or not? It is true that considering the nature of the crimes and continuity of the crimes committed by the petitioner, respondent no.2 found that externment of the petitioner for two years was necessary. On going through the record and proceedings, I am of the view that the satisfaction recorded on this count to order his exretnment for two years is based on available material. The only question that needs to be considered is whether his externment from entire Yavatmal district was necessary or his externment from Kelapur (Pandharkawada) taluka would serve the purpose. It is undisputed that all the crimes were

¶38

9 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶39

registered at Kelapur police station. Kelapur is a taluka place. The petitioner is residing at Kelapur, which is also known as Pandharkawada. The order of externment requires a person to stay away from his family. On account of externment, the family members are bound to suffer. Perusal of the order would show that respondent No.2 has not recorded sound reasons for externment of the petitioner from the entire Yavatmal district. The reasons are necessary. The material available on record and particularly the police station where the crimes are registered is required to be borne in mind. The order, on any count without recording reasons, could not be said to be in accordance with law. Therefore, while deciding the limits for externment, all the facts in totality are required to be considered. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that externment of the petitioner out of Kelapur (Pandharkawada) taluka would serve the purpose. The impugned order of externment on this count needs to be modified. Hence, I pass the following Order :

¶40

The Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶41

(i) The order of exretnment is maintained. However, the

¶42

order with regard to his externment out of entire Yavatmal district is

¶43

10 CRIWP263.24 (J).odt

¶44

modified.

¶45

(ii) In view of modification, externment of the petitioner shall

¶46

be out of Kelapur (Pandharkawada) taluka only for a period of two

¶47

years, in stead of entire Yavatmal district as ordered.

¶48

Rule accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶49

Diwale

¶50

Signed by: DIWALE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/08/2024 16:46:32

Vikesh @ Vicky Vitthalrao Deshattiwar v. the Divisional Commissioner Amravati,Amravati Division Amravati and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikesh @ Vicky Vitthalrao Deshattiwar v. the Divisional Commissioner Amravati,Amravati Division Amravati and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Payal W/O Mithun Kanojiya Maiden Name Ku. Payal D/O Ghanshyam Kanojiya vs Shri. Mithun S/O Prakesh Kanojiya

Pooja Atul Bhise vs Atul Gopal Bhise

Akhilesh Parasram Zaria vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Butibori Nagpur

Diwakar S/O Rajjana Bomkanthiwar Vs Sau. Seema W/O Madam Regundawar and Anr.

Varsha Mukundrao Gawande Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corp. Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Amravati Irrigation Division Vs Pandurang Jhabuji Katre and 2 Others