1 CRMP No. 821 of 2025 2025:CGHC:11093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 821 of 2025 1 - Netram Dhritlahre S/o Govind Dhritlahre Aged About 30 Years R/o Baronda, Police Station- Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District Magistrate Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) 2 CRMP No. 821 of 2025 Judgment on Board 06/03/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, being aggrieved with the order passed by the District Magistrate, Gariyaband on 07.02.2025 (Annexure P/1), wherein without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without recording any evidence, the order has been passed for externment the petitioner from four districts i.e. Gariyaband, Raipur, Dhamtari and Mahasamund for the period of six months. 2. The facts of the case are brief in that the Superintendent of Police, District-Gariyaband, filed a complaint under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990, with the District Magistrate, District-Gariyaband. The complaint sought the petitioner's externment, citing their alleged involvement with unsavory characters and participation in rioting, assault, criminal intimidation, and disruptive political and communal activities. These actions purportedly disturbed the area's peace and tranquility, posing a danger to public order and causing civilians to fear the petitioner and hesitate to report incidents. 3 CRMP No. 821 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authority without affording any proper opportunity of hearing for refuting the allegations levelled against petitioner the order of externment has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that the petitioner’s wife is carrying pregnancy and date of delivery is in the month of June, 2025 that is why wife of petitioner needs regular check-up, caution and the wife need company of his husband/petitioner at this very time. He goes on to submit that though an alternative appeal filed by the petitioner, but the same is not decided by the appellate authority (respondent No.1) as yet. He further submits that the order impugned (Annexure P/1) is malicious, erroneous and bad in law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the order passed by the trial Court to be just and proper, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 4 CRMP No. 821 of 2025 the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gone through the records and particularly the order (Annexure P/1) passed by District Magistrate, District-Gariyaband in Case No.202501220600006 with utmost circumspection. It is an admitted position that there are ten cases registered against the petitioner. Impugned order shows that the offences committed by the applicant are likely to cause breach of peace or adversely affect public safety or public order and the criminal conduct of the applicant may cause terror, danger or harm to general public or property. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is a pivotal provision that grants inherent powers to the High Courts and empowers them to exercise their jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the legal process and to secure the ends of justice. The powers conferred under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and that the power should not be used as an alternative to the statutory remedies available to the parties. As the appellant has alternative remedy and he already filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.1 which is still 5 CRMP No. 821 of 2025 pending consideration, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the District Magistrate, Gariyaband has rightly passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. The appellate authority/Respondent No.1 is also directed to expedite the trial, if there is no legal impediment. 8. Accordingly, this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA