1 wp413.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 413 OF 2025 PETITIONER Shyam s/ Narayan Alladiwar, Aged 39 years, Occu: Agriculturist, R/o Ward No.5 Kelvad, Taluka – Saoner, District Nagpur. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS 1. Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saoner, District Nagpur. 3. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Saoner, District Nagpur. 4. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., Kelvad, Tah. Saoner, District Nagpur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mahesh Rai, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Anant Ghongare, APP for respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATE OF RESERVED : 31/07/2025 DATE OF DECISION : 21/08/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. rkn 2025:BHC-NAG:8276 2 wp413.2025.odt 2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the externment proceedings order dated 10/03/2025 by Deputy Commissioner Saoner in externment proceedings No. 36/2024 and confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur dated 08/04/2025, externing the petitioner from Nagpur District for a period of two months under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice and extending his jurisdiction as vested under the provision of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said action affected the fundamental rights of the petitioner to move freely throughout the territory of India as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. 4. The proposal to extern the petitioner was initiated at the instance of the Police Inspector of Saoner Police Station, District Nagpur, under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Accordingly, a notice dated 05/02/2025 came to be issued rkn 3 wp413.2025.odt under Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to reply to the same before the Assistant Police Inspector, Saoner Police Station, District Nagpur. After considering the record, six offences are registered against the petitioner, and preventive action is also taken. The concerned authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police, passed the externment order, which was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, the offences which are registered against the present applicant does not covered under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. The crimes are registered against the present applicant under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The three offences are registered against the present applicant, which are covered under Chapter-XVI of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but there is no material on record to show that the action taken against the present petitioner is inadequate, and therefore, the order passed by the authority is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned APP strongly opposed the said petition by rkn 4 wp413.2025.odt filing the reply, and it is submitted that the proposal was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rural Nagpur, by the Police Inspector for inquiry under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. After receiving the inquiry report, the report was submitted, and after going through the report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rural Nagpur, issued the notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the authority and filed his reply. After perusal of the report, it is cleared that the petitioner was involved in the illegal activities, which creates fear in the mind of the public, and the petitioner used to give threats to the public in the vicinity, which shows the criminal nature of the petitioner. Due to this fear, no witness is coming forward to lodge a report against the petitioner, and therefore, the action taken externing him is legal, and no interference is called for. 7. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, it reveals that the proposal was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Rural Nagpur, to extern the petitioner from Nagpur District. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the petitioner on 05/02/2025 under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, to the petitioner, which was replied by him. The order passed by the rkn 5 wp413.2025.odt authority shows that in all six offences are registered against the present petitioner. Out of that, three offences are registered under Section 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and three offences are registered under Sections 452, 506 read with 34 of IPC, as far as Crime No. 62 of 2003 is concerned. Crime No. 76 of 2016 was registered under Sections 448 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Crime No. 267 of 2024 was registered under Sections 324, 506, and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Out of which, the petitioner is acquitted from the offence registered under the Crime No. 78 of 2016. Thus, now three offences are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and the two offences registered under the provision of the Indian Penal Code are pending. 8. On perusal of the order passed by the authority, which shows that the petitioner is involved in transporting the liquor. It is alleged that the present petitioner is also involved in crimes, which are covered under Chapter-XVI of the IPC. As far as the observations is that no witnesses are coming forward to depose against the present petitioner. No specific instances or the names of the witnesses are mentioned in the order. The general rkn 6 wp413.2025.odt allegations appeared to be levelled that such types of complaints are received against the present petitioner. There is no reference regarding how many complaints are received from the public as to the conduct of the present petitioner. As far as the order of externment, by its very nature, its extraordinary. It has the effect of force distressment from the home and surroundings, often it affects the livelihood of the person in order to extern. Thus, there must exist justifiable ground to sustain the order of externment. The order of externment, therefore, must be strict within the bounds of statutory provision. Under Clause (a) of Sub-Section-1 of Section 56, the externing authority must be satisfied on the basis of the objective material that the movements or act of the person to be externed are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to a person or property. Under clause-B there must be objective material on the strength on which the externing authority must record subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the externee is engaged or about to be engaged till the commission of offences involving force or violence. Mere registration of the number of offences by itself has not sustained an externment under Section 56 (1)(b) of the Act. The offences must either involve elements of force or violence rkn 7 wp413.2025.odt or fall under chapters XII, XVI, and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the externing authority must record satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to lead evidence in public against the externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. 9. To sustain an action of externment under Sub Clause- B, the offences the externee has engaged in must be under one of the chapters enumerated therein, and the acts or conduct of the externee must be such that the witnesses are terrified and dissuaded from giving evidence in a public hearing due to fear for the safety of their person or property. 10. In the light of the above-mentioned requirements of Section 56(1)(a) and (b), the aforementioned challenges deserve to be appreciated. First, the consideration of the offences which do not fall within the ambit of Clause-B of Sub-Section-1. Perusal of the chart of the offences indicates that all the crimes are registered against the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which is not covered under Chapters XII, XVI, and XVII of the IPC. Only two crimes are registered under Sections 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 324, 506, and 427 read with rkn 8 wp413.2025.odt Section 34 of the IPC. First, the consideration of the offences which do not fall within the ambit of Clause-B of Sub-Section-1. The situation thus is that the externee authority had floated the pendency of six cases, which did not satisfy the requirement of the class of cases stipulated by clause-B, and also considered the crimes in which the petitioner is already acquitted. The considerable period has already elapsed from the registration of the aforesaid crime till the initiation of the action for externment. The Crime no. 76 of 2026 was registered on 19/04/2016, whereas crime no. 267 of 2024 was registered on 11/04/2024. Out of which, the petitioner is already acquitted in crime No. 76 of 2016. The purpose of externment is not punitive. Externment is with a view to disable a person by moving him away from surroundings which prove favourable for the commission of the offences and thereby disarm the influence in the said area. Thus, there ought to be a lively life, generally the acts of the externee and the action of the externment. The stale cases cannot be used to support the externment order. This also bears upon the subjective satisfaction arrived by the externing authority. 11. Moreover, if the order passed by the externee rkn 9 wp413.2025.odt authority as well as the appellate authority is considered, there is no subjective satisfaction recorded by both the authorities. There is no reference as to the confidential witness. Moreover, the reply filed by the present petitioner appears to have not taken into consideration by the authority. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the externment period is already over, the petitioner wants to challenge and seeking quashment of the order passed, as there would be stigma due to the said order. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as no subjective sanctification is recorded by the authority, there is no reference as to the confidential witnesses, and there is no live link between the acts of the externee and the action of the externment. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case in his favour and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order. a] The writ petition is allowed. b] The impugned order dated 10/03/2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by the order dated rkn 10 wp413.2025.odt 08/04/2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.] rkn