Pawan Kishor Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.01.28 20:17:02 +0530

¶2

36-wp-6035-2024.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 6035 of 2024

¶5

Pawan Kishor Pawar Age 27 years, Occ. Service, R/at. Ambedkar Nagar, Opposite Vijay Apartment, Chopda Court, Ulhasnagar – 3, Dist. Thane. … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Deputy Commissioner of Police Circle -4, Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane.

¶8

Divisional Commissioner Kokan Division, Old Sachivalai, 1^st Floor, Vistar Bhawan, Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai – 32. … Respondents

¶9

Mr Rohan Hogle a/w Mr Shubham Sane, Mr Aadesh Konde Deshmukh, for the petitioner. Ms Sangita Phad, APP, for respondent / State.

¶10

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 27 January 2025

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard Mr Rohan Hogle, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Sangita Phad, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Page 1 of 7

27 January 2025

36-wp-6035-2024.docx

The impugned externment order dated 20 June 2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Division-IV, Ulhasnagar, Thane, prohibited the petitioner from entering Thane, Mumbai city and Mumbai suburbs districts for a duration of two years. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Externment Appeal No.124 of 2024 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, (‘the Act’), before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. On 30 September 2024, the Appellate Authority, declined to interfere with the externment order. According to the Appellate Authority the externment authority had adequately justified its subjective satisfaction. Being aggrieved with these orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶17

Mr Rohan Hogle, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the show cause notice lacks reasonable grounds for the petitioner’s externment and fails to meet the requirements outlined in Section 56 of the Act. The learned Counsel further submits that while the authority considered the crimes registered against the petitioner, these do not fall within the ambit of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 56 of the Act. Specifically, the order references crime No.482 of 2023 was registered shortly before the issuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner had been acquitted in all

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

27 January 2025

¶20

other cases prior to the notice.

¶21

Ms Sangita Phad, the learned APP for respondent/State opposes the petition, relying on the reasons recorded in the impugned externment order and the Appellate Authority’s decision. She emphasises that the cumulative impact of the petitioner’s conduct over time, which created terror among residents, must be considered.

¶22

The notice served on the petitioner under Section 59 of the Act explicitly cited the following offences :

¶23

Sr No.	Police Station	Crime registration No. with Sections	Status
01	Central Police Station, Thane.	CR No.669/2024 Secs.324, 506 IPC r/w 37(i) 1, 35 of Maharashtra Police Act	Subjudice
02	Central Police Station, Thane.	CR No.482/2023, 324, Secs. 323, 504 IPC	Under investigation
03	Central Police Station, Thane	CR No.72/2019 Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 IPC.	Subjudice
04	Central Police Station, Thane	CR 246/2019, Secs.313, 325, 323, 143, 147, 504 IPC.	Acquitted.
05	Central Police Station, Thane	CR No.129/2016, Secs. 324, 143, 145, 147, 149, 504, 506 IPC.	Acquitted
06	Central Police Station, Thane	CR No.,129/2014, Secs. 324, 341,34 IPC.	Acquitted.
07	Central Police Station, Thane	CR No.305/2013, Sec 325, 324, 323, 34 IPC	Acquitted.
08	Central Police Station,	CR No.93/2008,	Acquitted.

Page 3 of 7

27 January 2025

36-wp-6035-2024.docx

	Thane	Secs. 307, 325, 324, 34 IPC
09	Central Police Station, Thane	CR No.196/2005 Secs. 324, 34 IPC.	Acquitted.
10	Central Police Station, Thane	Non-cognizable. Chapter Case No.74/2023

¶28

It is a well established principle in law that the orders of externment must strictly adhere to the statutory provisions. Externment involves forcibly displaying of an individual from their home and surroundings, significantly impacting their livelihood. Consequently, any order for externment must be based on justifiable grounds. The mere registration of the offences does not automatically warrnat externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act. The behaviour or conduct of the person being externed should instill fear and discourage witnesses from providing evidence against them publicly, out of concern for their own safety and property. Externment is not intended as a punitive measure; rather, it aims to disable an individual by removing them from an environment conducive to criminal activity, thereby reducing their influence in the area. Establishing a direct link between the person’s actions and the necessity for externment is crucial.

¶29

After examining the offence listed at serial No.3, it is evident that it was registered in the year 2019, whereas the

Page 4 of 7

27 January 2025

36-wp-6035-2024.docx

externment proceedings commenced only in 2024, after a significant lapse of time. The offence at serial No.2, was still under investigation at the time of issuance of show cause notice and, therefore, cannot be considered. In cases listed from serial Nos.4 to 9, the petitioner was acquitted, and the offence at serial No.10 involved a non-cognizable offence.

¶34

Furthermore, there is no proper discussion establishing a live link between the registration of these offences and the initiation of the externment proceedings. The authorities have failed to record their subjective satisfaction justifying the petitioner’s externment from three districts, particularly since all the offences were registered exclusively at Central Police Station, Thane. The reasoning behind imposing a two-year externment also remains unclear, and it is imperative for the authorities to provide reasons supporting the duration of the externment.

¶35

9. In Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.¹ it was observed that,

¶36

“17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to

¶37

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99

Page 5 of 7

27 January 2025

36-wp-6035-2024.docx

specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restrained order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specified period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15 December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record that subjective satisfaction of the respondent No.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental

Page 6 of 7

27 January 2025

36-wp-6035-2024.docx

right guaranteed under Clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”

¶46

Thus, it is clear that when the competent authority passes an order of externment for a maximum period of two years it must demonstrate that it has applied its mind and recorded its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing the order. This satisfaction must be based on the material on record. However, in the externment order, I could not find any reason for indication regarding the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority. It is unclear why the petitioner was externed for a maximum period of two years from three districts when the offences were registered against the petitioner only at Central Police Station, Thane.

¶47

In that view of the matter, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of externment dated 20 June 2024 bearing No.DCP/Zone-IV/Ulhasnagar/Externment/Case No./22/order/ 5557/2024 passed by DCP, Zone-IV, Ulhasnagar and the Appellate order dated 30 September 2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Externment Appeal No.124 of 2024 are quashed and set aside.

¶48

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Chitra Sonawane.

¶50

Page 7 of 7

¶51

27 January 2025

Pawan Kishor Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kishor Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Caculo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs Sachin Dattu Dhumal and Anr.

Gopal Aggarwal vs Asst General Manager and Anr.

Waris Ali Ebrahim Khan vs the Income Tax Department and Anr.

Vinod Vikram Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sidhesh Dhanesh Shaha vs State of Maharashtra

Balveen Kaur Gandhi vs Kamraj Co. Operative Crdit Society Ltd. and Anr.