- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15758 WP No. 1131 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1131 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SYED SARDAR @ LORRY SARDAR @ MOHAMMED SARDAR S/O KHUTUBUDDIN AGED 49 YEARS R/AT NO NEAR MAKKA MASJID WARD NO 3 GALIPURA LAYOUT, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN KARNATAKA -571313 ADDRESS AS PER ADHAR CARD NO 69A, NEAR MASJID GALIPURA CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. COMMISSONER OF POLICE CHAMRAJNAGAR TOWN-571313 3. POLICE INSPECTOR CHAMRAJNAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION CHAMRAJNAGAR TOWN-571313 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15758 WP No. 1131 of 2026 4. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KOLLEGAL SUB DIVISION KOLLEGAL &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF EXTERNMENT NO IN M.A.G/CR NO 09/2025, DATED 24.12.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLEGAL I.E., RESPONDENT nO.4. B. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER(S) WHICH THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the respondent No.4/Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kollegal, wherein petitioner is subjected to externment on the premise that several criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. The said order is challenged. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15758 WP No. 1131 of 2026 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of externment passed by the respondent-authority, which is primarily founded on six criminal cases registered against him, as reflected in Annexures3A to F. A perusal of the material on record indicates that all the said criminal cases came to be registered on 01.11.2015 and 02.11.2015. The petitioner9s specific grievance is that the said cases arise out of the very same set of facts and constitute multiple FIRs stemming from a single incident. It is contended that despite the lapse of nearly a decade, the respondent- authority has invoked the provisions of Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and has proceeded to pass the impugned externment order, which is ex facie arbitrary and unsustainable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15758 WP No. 1131 of 2026 4. This Court, on examining the records, finds that though multiple criminal cases have been registered, they undeniably emanate from a single incident that occurred in the year 2015, and the petitioner is already facing prosecution in accordance with law. However, the invocation of powers under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, in the present case, appears to be wholly misconceived. The said provision can be pressed into service only upon the authority being satisfied, on the basis of cogent and tangible material, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person concerned is either engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of offences that are prejudicial to public order and that his presence poses a threat to the society at large. Additionally, such satisfaction must extend to the likelihood that witnesses may not come forward to depose against such person in public due to fear or intimidation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15758 WP No. 1131 of 2026 5. In the present case, it is rather surprising and legally untenable that the respondent-authority has sought to rely upon the pendency of criminal cases registered as far back as in the year 2015, without there being any reference to subsequent conduct or recent prejudicial activities attributable to the petitioner. The invocation of externment powers after a lapse of nearly ten years, in the absence of any fresh material indicating a continuing or imminent threat to public order, defeats the very purpose and object of Section 55. The provision is preventive in nature and cannot be resorted to as a punitive measure based on stale and outdated allegations. 6. It is a well-settled principle that externment of a citizen is a drastic and extraordinary measure, which has serious consequences on the fundamental right to movement and residence. Such power is required to be exercised sparingly and strictly in accordance with law, only when there exists compelling material demonstrating - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15758 WP No. 1131 of 2026 that the person concerned has become a menace to society and that externment is the only effective remedy available to maintain public order. In the case on hand, the impugned order does not disclose any such compelling circumstances or satisfaction based on relevant material. On the contrary, it reflects non-application of mind and mechanical exercise of power. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order of externment dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent No.4 3 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kollegal, vide Annexure3A, is hereby quashed; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15758 WP No. 1131 of 2026 (iii) All consequential actions taken pursuant to the impugned order shall stand set aside; (iv) No order as to costs. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55