- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29648 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1042 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M MAHENDRA @ BENKI, S/O LATE MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.1600, BASAVANAGUDI ROAD, BEHIND KETHAMARANAHALLI, MYSORE, IN CODE NO - 570002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJU C N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER MYSORE CITY REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PIN CODE NO - 570001. 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, UDAYAGIRI POLICE, MYSORE REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA AT BANGALORE PIN CODE NO - 570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER MYSORE IN NUMBER/MAG(2)/EXTERNMENT/ 16/2025 DATED 21.06.2025 U/S 55 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29648 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Mysuru. In terms of the said order, petitioner is directed to leave the jurisdiction of Mysuru City for a period of three months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is passed in gross violation of requirement under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short "Act of 1963"). In support of his submission, he would refer to the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in KUMAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.1. It is his further submission that co-ordinate bench of this Court has referred to another co- ordinate bench judgment in DARVESH @ MOHD. DARVESH 1 Crl.R.P.No.100084/2023 disposed of on 08.06.2023 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29648 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2025 s/o BHAVASAB vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER2. He would further submit that the order is passed without any enquiry and without application of mind. Therefore, same is required to be set-aside. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that five criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and after considering the report, the competent authority has applied its mind and passed the impugned order and thus, he would contend that there is no merit in the petition. 5. It is also his further submission that the order is passed on 21.06.2025 and Criminal Revision Petition is filed on 10.07.2025. Impugned order is valid for three months and it is going to expire in the month of September 2025 and there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 6. It is urged that the impugned order is passed considering five pending cases against the petitioner and it is also passed in the interest of general public. 2 Crl.R.P.No.2000, 22/2021 disposed of on 09.02.2021 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29648 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2025 7. It is noticed that before the order is passed, the petitioner is not heard and the order is passed only on the basis of the report said to have been submitted by the jurisdictional police. In the case of KUMAR supra, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that when it is under Section 55 of the Act of 1963, the competent authority has to apply its mind and the order cannot be passed only on the basis of the recommendation made by the jurisdictional police. Mere apprehension of the police is not a factor which is required to be considered before passing the order under Section 55 of the Act of 1963. 8. It is noticed from the impugned order that the competent authority has only referred to the report of the police and there is no indication of any enquiry being held to verify the authenticity of the report. 9. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable and hence, it is set-aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29648 CRL.RP No. 1042 of 2025 10. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after following the due procedure. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 42