- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102542 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O RAMAPPA KORAVAR AGE 44 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O. NANDISHWAR NAGAR, NAVANAGAR HUBLI - 580025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L AND O) HUBBALLI-DHARWAD HUBLI - 580 025. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 3. COMMISSIONER POLICE HUBBALLI DHARWAD COMMISSIONERATE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE P B ROAD, NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 025. 4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR APMC NAVANAGAR POLICE STATION DHARWAD - 580 025. RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING DHARWAD - 580 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA PATIL, H.C.G.P.) * * * THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE EXTERNMENT ORDER PASSED IN CHP/Vi.Ka.Da/COP/Hu- Dha/GADIPARU/30/2025 DATED 20.05.2025 BY RESPONDENT NO.2-THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L AND O), HUBBALLI-DHARWAD, UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE K.P. ACT. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the externment order dated 20.5.2025 in CHP/Vi./Ka.Da/COP/Hu-Dha/GADIPARU/30/2025 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Hubballi- Dharwad, Hubli, under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, Act’). 2. The petitioner does business in Nandishwar Nagar, Navanagar, Hubli. He is alleged to have been involved in various cases under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 28.04.2025, the Police Inspector, APMC Navanagar Police Station, Dharwad, filed a petition under Section 55 of the Act before respondent No.2-the Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Hubballi-Dharwad, Hubli, alleging that the petitioner is involved in several cases and being a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 rowdy-sheeter, sought externment order. Respondent No.2 issued three show cause notices dated 02.05.2025, 07.05.2025 and 16.05.2025 to the petitioner under Section 58 of the Act, seeking a reply from the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not be exiled from Hubli. On 20.05.2025, respondent No.2 passed the externment order against the petitioner directing the Police to send the petitioner out of Hubli-Dharwad Police Commissionerate to Hunsur, Mysuru District, for a period of six months from 20.5.2025 to 19.11.2025. The petitioner has sought quashing of the said order in this petition. 3. Heard Sri Maqboolahamed M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are no grounds made out in the entire order passed by respondent No.2 warranting exile of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 petitioner or to invoke such stringent measures. There is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any offences under the Indian Penal Code, to attract Section 55 of the K.P. Act. There is no allegation of any danger or harm to persons or property by the petitioner. The order of externment has curtailed movement of the petitioner. He further contended that even though an appeal is provided under Section 59 of the Act, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable. On these grounds, he prayed for quashing of the order of externment passed by respondent No.2. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He is involved in three cases. Considering the said aspects, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the impugned order. She further contended that there is a remedy of appeal available under Section 59 of the Act and therefore, the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 maintainable. Thus, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Perused the material available on record. The contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner an got appeal remedy under Section 59 of the Act is required to be rejected in view of position of law declared by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of AMBADAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1987 KAR 1481, wherein at paragraph No.5, it reads as under: “5. No doubt if there is express provision in the statute governing a particular subject matter, there is no scope for invoking or exercising inherent powers of the court; because the court ought to apply the provisions of the statute which are made advisedly to govern the particular subject matter and it being an extraordinary power, has to be sparingly exercised with great care and caution, the power cannot be invoked where another remedy is available and if any matter is covered by express provisions of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 statute, the High Court cannot and need not give a go bye invoking the provisions of Section 482 because that may amount to evolving new procedure in the grab of exercise of inherent powers, and that is well settled. Although as provided under Section 59 of the Act a remedy by appeal is available to any person aggrieved by such order of externment passed under Section 55 of the Act and the appeal lies to the Government, but from a reading of Section 59 together with Section 60 of the Act, it would appear that there is no bar against the court interfering with such order of externment in the circumstance as enumerated in Section 60 of the Act - (1) where the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 58 is not followed; (2) there is no material before the authority concerned upon which it could have based its order; and (3) the authority making the order is not of the opinion that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the persons in respect of whom an order is made under Section 55. Forming of such opinion by the authority as to the willingness of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 witnesses to come forward in public to give evidence against the persons sought to be proceeded is a must; because under clause (b) of Section 55, externment order could be made only where it appears there are reasonable grounds for believing that person or persons is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force or violence an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. Here in the case on hand, although the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate appears to have referred to so many criminal cases instituted against the three of the petitioners, but nowhere he is of the opinion that cases against those of the persons had ended in acquittal because of the witnesses unwilling to give evidence for fear of safety of person or property. In fact, no material worth the name has been placed to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 show that the cases ended in acquittal because of such fear. At one stage, of course the S.D.M. appears to have thought, that may be so, but there is no basis for the same. As pointed but by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 613), mere apprehension of the police is not enough for passing an order of externment. Some ground or the other is not adequate for making the order of externment. There must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Likewise, there must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against is so desperate and dangerous that his mere presence in the locality or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and its safety. A stringent test must be applied in order to avoid easy possibility of abuse of this power to the detriment of the fundamental freedoms. Natural justice must be fairly complied with and vague allegations and secret hearings are gross violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 the Constitution. The Act permits externment, provided the action is bona fide. All power, including police power, must be informed by fairness if it is to survive judicial scrutiny. It would appear, the learned S.D.M. has been more influenced by the secret report sent by the Circle Inspector of Police about such apprehension and the secret visit to the place, which has not been put to the petitioners. In substance, the S.D.M. has failed to form an opinion on tangible material that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioners. The latter part of the requirement of Clause (b) of Section 55 having not been fulfilled, the impugned order of externment passed cannot be sustained.” 7. In the light of order being passed for externment of the petitioner under Section 55 of the Act, it is necessary to notice the said provision which reads thus: “55. Removal of persons about to commit offences.— Whenever it shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provision of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf,— (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property, or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return to the said place from which he was directed to remove himself.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in three criminal cases, the petitioner has been acquitted and one criminal case is pending under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 9. On perusal of the report of respondent No.4 and the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, there is no allegation of the petitioner involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or in abetment of any such offences. There is no allegation against the petitioner that respondent No.4 is of the opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public case against the petitioner due to apprehension regarding safety of their persons or property. Therefore, Clause (b) of 55 of the Act is not made out. What is alleged against the petitioner is of committing offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, i.e. voluntarily causing hurt to the individuals. Further, in three criminal cases, the petitioner has been acquitted. There is also no allegation of causing or calculating cause alarm or danger or harm to persons or property. Therefore, Clause (a) of Section 55 of the Act is also not made out. As there is no outbreak of the epidemic - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8324 CRL.P No. 102542 of 2025 disease, Clause (c) of Section 55 of the Act is not attracted. 10. Considering the above aspects, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following O R D E R i. Criminal petition is allowed, and ii. The order dated 20.5.2025 in CHP/Vi./Ka.Da/COP/Hu-Dha/GADIPARU/30/2025 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Hubballi-Dharwad, Hubli, under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed off. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20