Allowed¶44

Sunil Anil Madiwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2025WP/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Externment under Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 quashed by Bombay High Court (Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2025, decided 8 January 2025, R.N. Laddha, J.; Sunil Anil Madiwal v. State of Maharashtra): offences of 2013-2020 (IPC ss.323, 324, 379, 411, 504 etc. with Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984) held stale; no live link between offences and externment; externment from two districts (Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban) unjustified where offences registered only at RCF Police Station; order passed in haste; appellate order under s.60 also quashed; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned externment order dated 13 May 2024 and appellate order dated 17 December 2024 quashed and set aside; petition allowed. ¶44

Sunil Anil Madiwal vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned externment order dated 13 May 2024 and appellate order dated 17 December 2024 quashed and set aside; petition allowed.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the externment order dated 13 May 2024, confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 17 December 2024, satisfies the requirements of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, or is arbitrary and passed in haste. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The impugned order of externment appears to have been passed in haste.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The offences registered against the petitioner during 2013 and 2020 are considered stale.

¶38

Key takeaways

There is no live link between the registration of the offences and the order of externment; the offences at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 were still under investigation.ratio¶43
It remains unclear why the petitioner was externed from two districts when the offences were only registered at the RCF Police Station.ratio¶43
In light of the above, the impugned orders dated 13 May 2024 and 17 December 2024 are quashed and set aside and the petition stands allowed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.N. Laddha, J.) allowed Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2025 and quashed and set aside (i) the externment order dated 13 May 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone VI (respondent No.4), barring the petitioner from entering Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts for one year, and (ii) the appellate order dated 17 December 2024 by which the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, declined to interfere in Externment Appeal No.101 of 2024 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Court found that the offences relied upon, registered between 2013 and 2020 at RCF Police Station, Mumbai, and Kisara Police Station, Telangana, were stale; that there was no live link between the registration of the offences and the externment order, the offences at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 being still under investigation; that it was unclear why the petitioner was externed from two districts when the offences were registered only at RCF Police Station; and that the externment order was passed in haste.

¶1

SMITA JOHNSONGONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITAJOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2025.01.09 21:53:17 +0530

¶2

16.wp2-25.docx

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2025

¶6

Sunil Anil Madiwal

¶7

aged 52 years, occ: business, residing at, Vitthal Nagar Society, Gavhan Pada, near Vitthal Mandir, BD Patil Marg, Chembur, Mumbai, 400074

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra

¶11

The Senior Inspector of Police, RCF Police Station, Mumbai.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chembur Division, Mumbai.

¶13

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone VI, Chembur, Mumbai

¶14

Commissioner Kokan Division Mumbai … Respondents

¶15

Mr SG Rajput, a/w. Mr Ashish Rajput, for the petitioner. Ms Manisha R Tidke, APP, for the respondent/ State. PSI Sulake, RCF Police Station, Mumbai, is present.

¶16

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 8 January 2025.

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

Page 1 of 5

8 January 2025

16.wp2-25.docx

The impugned externment order dated 13 May 2024 passed by respondent No.4 barred the petitioner from entering Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts for one year. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal, bearing Externment Appeal No.101 of 2024 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. On 17 December 2024, the Appellate Authority, after evaluating the material available on record, declined to interfere with the order of externment. The petitioner, feeling further aggrieved and dissatisfied, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶24

Mr SG Rajput, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the show cause notice lacks reasonable grounds to justify the petitioner’s externment. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 7 May 2024, and was asked to appear before the authority on the same day. He complied and appeared before the authority. However, without being given an opportunity to be heard, the authority issued an order on 13 May 2024, just within a week after his appearance. According to the learned Counsel, the externment order does not meet the requirements specified in Section 56 of the Act. The impugned order is arbitrary and lacks thoughtful consideration, as it fails to establish a direct link between the

Page 2 of 5

8 January 2025

16.wp2-25.docx

alleged crimes and the petitioner’s prejudicial activities, which the externment order seeks to address. The learned Counsel also points out that the authority’s decision considered ongoing investigations and crimes registered in 2013, 2016, 2018, and 2024.

¶30

Ms Manisha Tidke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State, opposes the petition, citing the reasons recorded in the impugned order of externment and by the Appellate Authority. According to her, it is essential to consider the cumulative effect of the externee’s behaviour over time on the residents, as the petitioner had instilled a sense of fear and terror among them.

¶31

The show cause notice issued on 7 May 2024 indicates that the authority examined the petitioner’s criminal record. These registered crimes are central to the authority’s satisfaction in passing the externment order. They are as follows:

¶32

Sr No.	Police Station	CR No.and Sections
01.	R.C.F.	CR No.230/2013
		Sections 324,323,504 of IPC.
02.	R.C.F.	CR No.37/2016
		Sections 324,323,504,34 of IPC.

Page 3 of 5

8 January 2025

16.wp2-25.docx

03. Kisara Station, (Telangana).	Police	CR No.546/2018 Section 379 of IPCread withSection 15(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)Act,1962.
04. R.C.F.		CR No.203/2020 Sections 379, 285, 411, 34 of IPCread withSection 15(1)(2)(3) (4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public PropertyAct,1984.
05. R.C.F.		CR No.56/2024 Sections 379, 511, 34 of IPCread with Section 15 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)Act,1962.

¶38

Out of these five offences, four were registered at RCF Police Station, Mumbai, and one at Kisara Police Station, Telangana. However, except for the offence listed at Serial No.5 above, all were registered against the petitioner between 2013 and 2020. The offences registered at Sr. Nos. 3, 4 and 5, under Section 379, 285, 411 read with Section 30 and Section 15(1)(2)(3)(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, were registered during 2013 and 2020 are now considered stale. The offences listed at Serial Nos.1 and 2 above were under investigation.

Page 4 of 5

8 January 2025

16.wp2-25.docx

Moreover, there is no live link between the registration of these offences and the order of externment. That apart, it remains unclear why the petitioner was externed from two districts when the offences were only registered at the RCF Police Station. Additionally, the impugned order of externment seems to have been passed in haste.

¶44

In light of the above, the impugned orders dated 13 May 2024 and 17 December 2024 are hereby quashed and set aside and the petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶45

Page 5 of 5

¶46

8 January 2025

Sunil Anil Madiwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Anil Madiwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Satishkumar Gupta vs Ramnivas Janardhan Agarwal and Anr.

Vyankatrao Madanrao Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Ayush Chaturvedi vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suryakant Ramchandra Avaghade vs Deepak Eknath Dalvi and Ors.

Vishal Prakash Band vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ms. Vidya Shankar Chorge vs the State of Maharashtra