- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13837 CRL.P No. 104149 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104149 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAHUL MALLUR S/O. ARUN MALLUR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. SEIZING WORK, R/AT. SETTLEMENT, GANGADHAR NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, SHATI NIKETAN COLONY, HUBLI-580 020. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PANDURANG HANAMASAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, HUBBALLI DHARWAD CITY POLICE COMMISSIONERATE AND THE OFFICE POLICE COMMISSIONER AND THE OFFICE POLICE COMMISSIONER NAVNAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580009. 3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, BENDIGERI TOWN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI-580009. R1 TO R3 REP. BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13837 CRL.P No. 104149 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE EXTERNMENT ORDER DATED 18.08.2025 BEARING NO.KRA:CHP/VIKADA/COP/HU-DHA/GADIPARU/68/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE HUBLI-DHARWAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2. Brief facts of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner has been charge sheeted for five cases. Out of which, two cases have been ended in acquittal; three cases are pending for consideration. In the meantime, the proceeding for externment was initiated by the ACP of Hubballi- Dharwad under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 19631. An order of externment was passed on 18.08.2025. 1 For short, ‘KP Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13837 CRL.P No. 104149 of 2025 Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been shifted to Mysore. 3. Heard Sri.Pandurang Hanamasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Praveen Y.Devareddi, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner though he was shifted to Mysore and stayed there pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No.2, recently, on 02.09.2025, his wife gave birth to a male child and he has to take care of them. The order passed by the respondent No.2 is not appropriate and it was passed intentionally with an order to keep him away from the place, though he has not committed any offences. 5. It is further submitted that, the petitioner has to appear before the Courts where the three cases are pending. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently justified the order passed by the respondent No.2 and submitted that, the petitioner involved in many criminal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13837 CRL.P No. 104149 of 2025 cases. Merely because, two cases have been ended in acquittal, that does not mean, that he has not committed any offences and he was staying peacefully in the society. In fact, he has misused the cases registered against him and was behaving as a rowdy in the locality and also terrorising and threatening the public at large. Therefore, the respondent-police after having received the information regarding his involvement in disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the public, passed a suitable order. Therefore, it is not appropriate to set aside the order passed by respondent No.2. Hence, learned HCGP prays to reject the petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the order passed by the respondent No.2. 8. It appears from the record that, the order passed by the respondent No.2 was in the absence of the petitioner herein. He was not present before the Authority at the time when the order was passed. Moreover, opportunity was not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13837 CRL.P No. 104149 of 2025 given to him to defend his case. There are three cases pending against him, he has to appear before the Authority. Such being the fact, the order of externment would not be sustainable. It is not sufficient to pass an order of externment. Moreover, recently his wife gave birth to a male child and he has to attend the Court cases as per the conditions imposed while granting the bail. 9. Therefore, in my considered opinion the order passed by the respondent No.2 is required to be set aside. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The externment order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMM / CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41