- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33765 WP No. 23862 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23862 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: PREMA W/O, BALU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT, RAJKUMAR NAGARA, WARD NO. 16 HASSAN TOWN HASSAN DISTRICT-01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP.K.C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN HASSAN DISTRICT-01 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33765 WP No. 23862 of 2025 3. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR PENSION MOHALLA POLICE STATION HASSAN CITY HASSAN DISTRICT-01 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K. P. YASHODHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 IN CASE NO. MAG/684/2024-25 PASSED BY R1 AGAINST THE SON OF PETITIONER WHO HAS BEEN EXTERNED FROM 11.07.2025 TO 11.01.2026 FROM HASSAN TOWN TO THE LIMITS OF NETHAJU NAGAR POLICE STATION RAICHUR DISTRICT (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33765 WP No. 23862 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by her son being externed by the first respondent vide the order dated 11.07.2025 under the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Act of 1963']. This impugned order is after the petitioner is served with the Show Cause Notice and an inquiry under Section 58 of the Act of 1963. The first respondent has opined that the petitioner's son must be externed because of the reasons which read as under: a. the petitioner's son has "a total of one" murder case against him, and b. a comprehensive reading of the details of "all the proceedings", is that the petitioner's son has a rowdy background and that due inquiry is held under Section 58 of the Act of 1963. 2. Mr. Pratheep K. C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the provisions of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33765 WP No. 23862 of 2025 Section 55 the Act of 1963, submits that the first respondent, to justify a reasonable decision on the petitioner's externment must record satisfaction that the person concerned is acting in a manner calculated to cause alarm or danger, or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the concerned is engaged/about to be engaged or is abetting the commission an offence involving force or violence or that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public because of fear to their property or person. 3. Mrs. K. P. Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light the canvass as aforementioned and the provisions of Section 55 of the Act of 1963 as also the manner in which the first respondent has reasoned on why the petitioner must be externed. The Section 55 of the Act of 1963 in its material part reads as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33765 WP No. 23862 of 2025 "55 (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." 4. This Court must opine that it would be incumbent upon the first respondent, to visit the petitioner and his family with the consequences of an externment order, to record an opinion that would come in any of the afore folds. The impugned order does not satisfy this requirement. Hence, there must be interference but only to restore the proceedings for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33765 WP No. 23862 of 2025 due consideration with liberty to the petitioner to provide further response, if any. Hence, the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed-in-part. b. The first respondent's impugned order dated 11.07.2025 [Annexure - A] is quashed restoring the proceedings for due consideration. c. The petitioner shall appear, without further notice, before the first respondent on 15.09.2025 and will be at liberty to file further response. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB