Writ petition filed by an elected Panchayat member seeking quashing of an istagasa alleging he threatened witnesses in an NDPS case. The Court found the allegations unbelievable and the document vague, quashing it. The externment order was already stayed.
The istagasa no. 95/2024 dated 16.02.2024 is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2024:CGHC:33506-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 178 of 2024
Rajjak Ali @ Mundul S/o Late Guljar Ali Aged About 46 years (wrongly mentioned as 50 Years) R/o Nonbirra, Police Station Kartala, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
Present Address - Budhiya Plot, Near Housing Board Colony, Rampur, P.S. Civil Line, Rampur, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ajeet Vasant District Magistrate (Collector) Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Siddharth Tiwari Superintendent Of Police Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Suman Lal Poya The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Civil Lines, Rampur, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5 - M.V.Patel, Station House OfÏcer, Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
2
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
02/09/2024
1. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant is an elected member of Janpad Panchayat, Kartala and his wife is also at presently working as a Vice President, Kartala. Earlier also, on two occasions he as well as his wife were duly elected as a member of Janpad Panchayat, Kartala and not a single compliant has been made after 2014 under chapter XII, XVI and XVII of IPC or under Section 506 and 509 of IPC. The respondent No. 2 and 3, in the year 2012 initiated proceedings for externment against the appellant but the same, after due examination and considering all the relevant factors decided in favor of the appellant and accordingly, the matter was consigned to records vide order dated 23.07.2012. The respondent No.3, just before the assembly election in the year 2014, again initiated proceeding for externment against the appellant by submitting a report before the District Magistrate, Korba. The
3
respondent No. 2 after due consideration of the material available on record vide order dated 27.01.2015 decided the aforesaid externment case in favor of the appellant. The respondent No. 2 filed a review petition against the order dated 27.01.2015 but the said review petition has also been dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2015
3. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Superintendent of Police, Korba, again just before the election again initiated the externment proceeding but the same, vide order dated 24.12.2018, was decided in favor of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 on dated 07.04.2024 sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Korba with a prayer to initiate the proceeding of externment against the appellant. The respondents No. 02 to 05 are well within the knowledge of the fact that after 2012, the petitioner has not indulged with any crime, infact he has worked as a messiah of the poor people and always helped the poor people for upgrading their lifestyle and for that very reason since last 2 decades, he is the continuously elected member of Janpad Panchayat Kartala because public of village Kartala at large have full faith upon the petitioner and he is of very helping nature. When the assembly election 2024 were declared, then again as a usual manner, the respondent No. 02 and 03 in order to initiate the proceeding for externment and for that very reason on 16/02/2024 the impugned Istagasha has been prepared and on the basis of the said Istagasha, and older cases prior to 2012 the respondents with criminal intention to somehow implicated the petitioner in any case whether he has committed the offence or not, so the impugned Istagasha in which the story has been fabricated and cooked in between the collusion of respondent no. 02 to 05 and inspite of the fact that neither the petitioner is an accused in the Crime No. 75/2024 nor he has any kind of enmity with the 2 witnesses namely Surendra Garg and Aditya Singh. Even the
4
petitioner has no knowledge about the whereabouts of the accused or the witnesses but intentionally and for the malafide reason, Istagasha No. 95/2024 has been prepared because the respondent no. 02 to 05 having no material for externment but on the basis of impugned concocted Istagasha which has never been served to the petitioner and in which the petitioner has never been directed to appear before the City Magistrate and the proceeding for externment has been initiated. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the afÏdavit which relates to Surendra Garg and Aditya Singh who categorically stated in the impugned Istagasha, his age has wrongly been mentioned and they have not made any complaint anywhere about staring or scaring the witnesses by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of externment and made a prayer for grant of stay and the same has been heard by the Secretary (Home) but till date no interim order has been passed and that resulted the petitioner not being in the position to serve the duty of the public at large of the Janpad Panchayat. Even he is also not able to take care of her mother and at present the petitioner has been called for receiving the compensation of the land which the government has acquired. The petitioner is not in the position to either serve his duty as a member of the Janpad Panchayat with the public at large and also not able to perform the basic duty to look after his ill mother for her treatment at Bilaspur and also not able to go and make objection about the land which has been acquired by the government and the aforesaid trouble has been come into the life of the petitioner due to the conduct of the respondent No. 02 to 05 who have concocted the Istagasha No. 95/2024 against the petitioner. Though the petitioner is not at all involved in the aforesaid act which has been mentioned in the impugned Istagasha and that has been fabricated and prepared by the respondent no. 02 to 05 with the malafide intention to somehow pass
5
an order of externment against the petitioner though till date the said Istagasha has not been filed before the City Magistrate and from perusal of the same, it is clear that the same has been prepared only toharass and humiliate the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1/State as well as Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5 submit that that the allegation of the petitioner is that the respondents No.2 to 5 in collusion with each other have prepared Istagasa on 16.02.2024 with the allegation that on 14.02.2024 at about 10:40 a.m. when the respondent No.4 was investigating the offence in Crime No.75/2024 for an offence punishable under section 21B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and during the investigation at Village Baigindabhar Korba against one person in presence of 2 witnesses namely Surendra Garg and Aditya Singh, at that time the petitioner was staring at the witnesses and was trying to scare them and there was reasonable apprehension in future that the applicant will quarrel with the aforesaid witnesses and probably he will commit some cognizable offence and also there is possibility for breach of peace and tranquility and the said Istagasa No. 95/2024 was never been produced before the City Magistrate and the petitioner is not having any knowledge about the Surendra Garg and Aditya Singh.
5. Mr. Pandey and Ms. Singh further submit that the petitioner is a habitual criminal offender and various crimes have been registered against the petitioner before Police Station Urga, Kotwali Korba, Kartala and Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur of District Korba (CG) and therefore vide order dated 04.05.2024 the District Magistrate District Korba (CG) in Criminal Case No. 202404050400013 as per the provisions of the Section 3 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990
6
an order of externment has been passed against the petitioner. On 14.02.2024 at about 10:40 a.m. when the respondent No.4/Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur District Korba was investigating the Crime No. 75/2024 for the offence punishable under section 21B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act the petitioner came to the spot and staring at the witnesses No.1 Surendra Garg and Witness No.2 Aditya Singh and scared them and it was apprehended that the public peace and tranquility may arise and therefore upon the complaint of Surendra Garg the Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur District Korba (CG) has registered Istagasa No. 95/2024 on 16.02.2024 against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under section 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the statement of the complainant/Surendra Garg and Aditya Singh has also been registered and accordingly the Istagasa No. 95/2024 has been filed before the Court of Learned City Magistrate on 02.07.2024 and the same has been recorded in the case register on 10.07.2024 as Criminal Case No. 557/2024 and the petitioner was directed to appear on 25.07.2024 before the Court of Learned City Magistrate. The case is pending adjudication before the Learned Magistrate. The police ofÏcials have acted in accordance with law and due proceedings have been initiated by the Police while registering the Istagasa No. 95/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 107, 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. upon the complaint made by the complainant Surendra Garg and Aditya Singh and further the action of the police is in order to maintain the public peace and tranquility and thus the action of the police is in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the order of externment the petitioner had preferred an appeal as per provisions of section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 for stay of the execution and enforcement of the order of externment dated
7
04.05.2024 passed by the District Magistrate District Korba before the State Government, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (CG). The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, after hearing the appeal of the petitioner vide the order dated 11.06.2024 has been pleased to stay the execution and enforcement of the externment order dated 04.05.2024 of the petitioner and information of which was also given to the petitioner. In view of the above submissions the petition of the petitioner is not tenable and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed as the action of the respondent authorities is in accordance with law.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. The fact of the matter remains that after presentation of the Istagasha No. 95/2024 (Annexure P/1) wherein the allegation against the petitioner is that he had stared and tried to influence the witnesses in an NDPS case namely Aditya Singh and Surendra Garg and as such, proceedings under Section 107, 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is an elected representative i.e. Member of Janpad Panchayat, Kartala, District Korba. From perusal of the Istagasha which is sought to be challenged in this petition, it is apparent that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he stared and tried to threaten the witnesses of an NDPS case. When the proceedings of NDPS Act was being carried out in presence of the police personnel, the allegation of the police that he tried to scare/threaten the witnesses is quite unbelievable. Further, in an appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Korba, before the Additional Chief Secretary,Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs, the same has been stayed vide order dated
8
11.06.2024 and as on date, there is no order of externment in operation against the petitioner. From bare perusal of the Istagasha No. 95/2024 dated 16.02.2024, the same appears to be vague and as such, the same is hereby quashed.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed . No order as to cost.
Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE
Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
Digitally signed by AMIT AMITKUMAR KUMAR DUBEY DUBEY Date:2024.09.03 18:47:15 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned istagasa against an elected panchayat member should be quashed in the interest of justice due to its vague allegations.
Whether the allegations of staring and threatening witnesses in an NDPS case are credible against a public functionary with past acquittals.
Rajjak Ali @ Mundul
State Of Chhattisgarh
Ajeet Vasant
Siddharth Tiwari
Suman Lal Poya
M.V.Patel
Bibhu Datta
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
