Quashed¶9

Yogesh Udaram Gokhe v. the State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Khapa Tah.Saoner Dist.Nagpur and 3 Others

Bombay HC9 Jan 2025WP/885/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Impugned externment order dated 9.12.2022 passed by respondent No.4 quashed and set aside; rule made absolute ('Rule accordingly'). ¶9

Yogesh Udaram Gokhe Vs the State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Khapa Tah.Saoner Dist.Nagpur and 3 Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned externment order dated 9.12.2022 passed by respondent No.4 quashed and set aside; rule made absolute ('Rule accordingly').

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the externment order dated 9.12.2022 passed by respondent No.4 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saoner) externing the petitioner from the limits of Nagpur district for six months is sustainable and should stand.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The externment order was passed on material which could not have been relied on for exercising discretion under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act — a 'C' summary had been filed in Crime No.53/2021 (on 10.8.2021) and the petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.88/2022, leaving effectively only Crime No.181/2022 considered along with earlier offences.

¶7

Key takeaways

Nothing on record justified the passing of the externment order against the petitioner.ratio¶7
Since the statements of confidential witnesses were neither recorded nor produced on record, the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 required to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶7
Passing observation: although the impugned order of externment was being set aside, the externment period prescribed by that order had already lapsed.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (DB — per Joshi J.; Sambre J.), Criminal Writ Petition 885/2022: An externment order dated 9.12.2022 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saoner (respondent No.4), externing the petitioner from the limits of Nagpur district for six months under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, was quashed and set aside because it rested on material incapable of supporting the discretion — a 'C' summary had been filed in Crime No.53/2021 on 10.8.2021 and the petitioner stood acquitted in Crime No.88/2022, leaving only Crime No.181/2022 considered along with earlier offences; the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Saoner had opined that externment would not be appropriate; and the statements of confidential witnesses were neither recorded nor produced. The court referred to Baburao Changa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (WP 3953/2011, Principal Seat, 11.5.2012) on restraint being no greater than necessary. The prescribed externment period was noted as already lapsed; rule made absolute.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:506-DB

¶2

wp885.2022

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.885/2022

¶6

Yogesh Udaram Gokhe, aged about 50 Yrs., Citizenship Indian, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Gadeval Mohalla, Ward No.7, Khapa, Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur. ... Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, P.S. Khapa, Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural), Nagpur.

¶7

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

¶8

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. N.R. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondents/State. ---------------- CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 9.1.2025.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Justice Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)

¶11

2 wp885.2022

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 9.12.2022 by which the petitioner was externed from the limits of Nagpur district for a period of six months.

¶14

Two notices were issued to the petitioner. By notice dated 23.3.2019 the respondent No.4 had directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Saoner Division to submit its findings with respect to the application proposing the externment of the petitioner which was preferred by the Police Station, Khapa. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saoner informed the respondent No.4 that the nature of offences registered against the petitioner are minor and Crime Nos.181/2021 and 63/2019 are under trial and based on the aforesaid offences to pass an order of externment would not be appropriate against the petitioner.

¶15

3 wp885.2022

¶16

After receiving the report of the Sub-Divisional Police

¶17

Officer, Saoner and the reply filed by the petitioner the respondent No.4 has issued a fresh show cause notice on 23.4.2019 relying six same offences which were registered during the period of 2014 to 2019. The confidential statements of the witnesses were not recorded and it is even not mentioned in both the notices. The petitioner is ordered to remove himself from the Nagpur District in addition to Saoner Taluka for a period of six months and not to enter such area without prior permission of the respondent No.4.

¶18

The petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Shri Baburao Changa Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra and another passed by Principal Seat of this Court in Writ Petition No.3953/2011 delivered on 11.5.2012 in which in para 10 it is observed as follows:-

¶19

“10. Undoubtedly Section 56 of the said Act enables the externing authority to extern a person, even from an area outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the externing authority. In

¶20

wp885.2022

¶21

¶22

fact, the externing authority has been conferred with a power to direct a person to remove himself outside any area or areas in the State of Maharashtra. However, it is obvious that the basic object of the externment proceedings is to keep a person, whose activities are causing problems in a particular area, out of that area. The externment order affects the fundamental rights of a citizen and, therefore,, it has to be reasonable. A person cannot be put under a greater restraint than would be absolutely necessary. Even if there would be a case for externment of a person, he cannot be externed from the entire State or from an area greater than what would be necessary for preventing the activities of such person taking place in a particular area or locality. If the action is more drastic than is necessary for attaining the desired result, it cannot stand the Judicial scrutiny.”

¶23

The petitioner has prayed to set aside the

¶24

order passed by the respondent No.4.

¶25

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶26

After going through the order passed by the respondent No.4 on 9.12.2022 it appears that three offences i.e. Crime No.53/2021 punishable under Section 379 read with

¶27

5 wp885.2022

¶28

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No.181/2021 punishable under Sections 294, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Crime No.88/2022 punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of I.P.C. are considered for passing the externment order. Though above three crimes are considered the chargesheet of entire offences is filed along with the record. In crime No.53/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code committed on 23.2.2021, “C” summary is filed on 10.8.2021 and in another offence i.e. Crime No.88/2022 petitioner is acquitted. The externment order is passed only considering one Crime i.e. Crime No.181/2022 which is considered along with earlier offences. It appears that the externment order is passed on the material which could not have been relied on for the purpose of exercising discretion under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. In some of the crimes allegedly committed by the petitioner, he is already acquitted. There is report of Sub-Divisional Police Officer giving an opinion that to pass an order of externment against the

¶29

6 wp885.2022

¶30

petitioner would not be appropriate. We find nothing on record justifying the passing of externment order against the petitioner. Neither the statements of confidential witnesses are recorded nor produced on record. Hence the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 requires to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

Though we are setting aside the impugned order of externment, it is to be noted that the externment period prescribed by the said order has already lapsed.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated

¶33

9.12.2022 passed by respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside. Rule accordingly.

¶34

(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶35

Tambaskar.

Yogesh Udaram Gokhe v. the State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Khapa Tah.Saoner Dist.Nagpur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Udaram Gokhe v. the State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Khapa Tah.Saoner Dist.Nagpur and 3 Others

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

Similar cases

Valerio Meregalli, Thr. Constituted Attorney, Sara Andreis and Anr. Vs State of Maha., Thr. the Women and Child Devpt. (Wcd) Thr. Secy., Mumbai and Ors.

Nirmala D/O Manohar Kumbhare @ Nirmala W/O Kiran Hedaoo Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Roshanali S/O Yusufali Ajani and Another Vs Asgarali S/O Yusufali Ajani and Others

Remaji Maroti Shende and Others vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

M/S Amrut Cotton Industries, Buldhana Thr. Proprietor and Others Vs Bank of Baroda, Buldhana Thr. Chief Manager

Satishkumar Sukhdeo Dahat Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others