Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18399 (CHH)

MOHAMMAD IMRAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPCR/224/2025 · 2025-04-22

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:18080-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 224 of 2025 Mohammad Imran S/o Mohammad Gufran Aged About 29 Years R/o Imambada Near Shitla Mandira, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - District Magistrate Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House OfÏcer Police Station Chhawni District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the grievance of the petitioner from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Appeal No. F-4- 2/Home-C/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 1 and also quash order dated 23.12.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 04/2018 (Annexure P/2) by Respondent No. 2. 10.3 Cost of the litigation/petition be allowed. 10.4 Any other relief(s)may be given to the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that an application was filed by the Superintendent of Police Durg to the District Collector Durg C.G. on 19.12.2022 to the effect that the petitioner was involved in the criminal activities, and he is habitual offender and various offence registered against him in related to "Gundagardi, Marpit, and Satta Khilana" in between 2015 to 2022 and further stated petitioner was notorious persons and there is anger in public at large. The Superintendent of Police recommended to initiated the proceedings under section 5(b) of Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the District Magistrate initiated proceedings and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but no documents was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 02.11.2023 and denied the contents those are mentioned in the notice. The learned District Magistrate after recording evidence of witnesses and due to nonappearance of the petitioner proceeded ex- parte against him on 06.06.2024 and defence of the petitioner was struck-off. The learned Magistrate after having gone through the entire record and copy of Jarayam, found petitioner to be engaged in various 3 offences from the year 2006 relating to assault, abusing and offences under the Gambling Act and accordingly, on 23.12.2024, passed the order of externment under Section 3 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 and petitioner was restrained to enter in the District Durg and surrounding Districts of Raipur, Bemetara, Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon, Balod and Dhamta for a period of 1 year. The said order of the learned District Magistrate was challenged before the State Government, but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 03.04.2025 by the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 23.12.2024, the petitioner has been restrained from entering the Durg District and its adjoining Districts namely Raipur, Bemetara, Khairagarh Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon, Balod, and Dhamtari for a period of one year. Mr. Jain further submits that the offences on the basis of which the petitioner has been restrained from entering the aforesaid Districts, relates to the year 2015 to 2022 and for the last three years, there is not a single case registered against him under the Gambling Act or any other offence. Even in the offences relating to the Gambling Act, he has merely been imposed fine and he is in no manner a threat to the society and hence, prays that a lenient view may be taken and the orders impugned may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that there were total 18 cases registered against the petitioner which relate to Gambling Act and also under the Arms Act and IPC and as such, it cannot be said that he is a social person. The orders passed by the learned District 4 Magistrate as well as the State Government are just and proper warranting no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of Annexure P/3 which is a list of crime details, it transpires that there are total 18 cases registered against the petitioner out of which most of the offences relate to Gambling Act and one offence relate to Arms Act and one under Section 452 of the IPC, though in the case relating to Arms Act and the IPC, he has been acquitted of the charges. However, the fact remains that in all the offences relating to Gambling Act, he has been convicted and imposed fine. Another aspect of the matter is that after the year 2022, there appears to be no offence registered against the petitioner and as such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to reform himself and the order of externment for a period of one year passed by the learned District Magistrate, Durg (Annexure P/2) and afÏrmed by the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Annexure P/1), needs to be modified to the extent that the period of externment is reduced to six months. It is ordered accordingly. 8. With the above modification, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.24 18:55:52 +0530