Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62500
1 WP-26375-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 26375 of 2024
SANDEEP TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging order of externment of petitioner passed by District
Magistrate, Rewa dated 24.04.2024 by which petitioner has been externed
from District Rewa, Mauganj, Sidhi, Singrauli, Satna and Maihar for period
of one year.
2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that order is contrary to
law. Moment and activity of petitioner is not danger to person or property
and nature of offence which is registered against petitioner is not of that
serious nature. No offences has been registered under Chapter XII, XVI and
XVII or under Section 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. There was no
possibility of offences which is said to have been committed by petitioner to
order of externment. There was no material to show that witnesses are not
coming forward to give evidence in the case. Nine cases were registered
against the petitioner and in most of the cases he has been acquitted. District
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 07-01-2025
12:55:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62500
2 WP-26375-2024
Magistrate has committed an error in not taking into account the acquittal of
petitioner. Mandatory provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990
was ignored. In these circumstances, impugned order passed by District
Magistrate dated 24.04.2024 which has been confirmed in appeal vide order
dated 20.08.2024 be set aside.
3. Government Advocate appearing for State has submitted its reply.
In its reply it has been stated that it is experience of administration that
incident of crime against Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and women
are on increase and they need protection against atrocities. Communal
tension also tends to disturb peace loving citizens and same is to be taken
care of. It is submitted that as per Section 19, sources of information is not to
be disclosed. It is submitted that as per Section 10, any order passed under
Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall not be called in question in any Court except on
ground the District Magistrate had not followed the procedure laid down in
Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1990 or there was no material before District
Magistrate upon which he could have based his order and District Magistrate
was not of opinion that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give
evidence in public against the petitioner. It is submitted that opportunity of
hearing was provided to petitioner and notices were issued in accordance
with Section 8 (1) of Act of 1990. Petitioner appeared before Collector and
sought time to file reply. On 23.04.2024, petitioner submitted his reply
through his advocate. Petitioner is having long history of criminal records
since 2015 to 2024. Petitioner is repeatedly committing offences mentioned
in Chapter XVI which are offences affecting human body and Chapter XVII
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 07-01-2025
12:55:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62500
3 WP-26375-2024
against property. Taking into account District Magistrate considered entire
facts of the case and thereafter passed impugned order exercising power
conferred under Section 5(b) of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.
While exercising power, authorities are required to record reasonable reasons
for removal of a person. District Magistrate has duly applied its mind. Mere
acquittal of a person in criminal case is not a shield against the order of
externment. Mere acquittal does not mean that externment proceedings
cannot be initiated against the petitioner. In these circumstances, no
interference is called for in the impugned order and petition be dismissed.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order
passed by District Magistrate.
5. Acquittal of a person may result if evidence is not properly collected
by prosecution or there is failure to prove it in Court. There may also be
circumstances that witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence
against a person or any other error in part of prosecution case which may
result in acquittal of the accused. Merely acquittal of accused will not give
him a shield to get full proof protection from order of externment. District
Magistrate has various sources from which he can gather fact and
information regarding activities of a person which may fall within mischief
of Section 5(b) of Act of 1990 for passing an order of externment. Court has
to see whether there was sufficient material before District Magistrate and
reasonable grounds existing for passing of order. District Magistrate has to
follow proper procedure as envisaged in Act before passing of order. Seven
cases under Indian Penal Code and one offence under SC/ST (Prevention of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 07-01-2025
12:55:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62500
4 WP-26375-2024
Atrocities) Act is registered against the petitioner. Two cases of prohibitive
action by Executive Magistrate is initiated against petitioner. Offences which
are committed by petitioners span from year 2015 to 2024. In last five years
petitioner has committed four offences. Other offences committed by
petitioner are old and stale and cannot be taken into consideration. Offences
in last five yeas are under Sections 341, 294, 323, 451 and 504 of IPC.
Offences committed by petitioner under Sections 323 and 341 falls within
Chapter XVI of IPC and offence under Section 451 of IPC falls under
Chapter XVII which shows that petitioner was engaged in committing
offences which are described under Section 5(b). Merely when a person is
engaged in committing offence under Chapter XVI or XVII or under Section
506 and 509 of IPC or when he is involved in abetment of such offence
alone will not give a ground for externment of a person. Said fact is to be
coupled with opinion of District Magistrate that witnesses are not coming
forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of
apprehension on their part as regards to their safety or property.
6. Considering the facts of the case, there is fulfillment of one part of
ingredients mentioned in Section 5(b) that he was engaged in committing
offence under Chapter XVI and XVII of IPC. Now, it is to be seen that
whether there is material that witnesses are not willing to come forward to
give evidence as they suspect danger to their safety or property. On
examining the order, it is found that nothing has been mentioned that what
material has been relied upon by District Magistrate to form an opinion that
witnesses are not coming forward in public to give evidence against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 07-01-2025
12:55:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:62500
5 WP-26375-2024
petitioner.
7. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ
petition is allowed. Externment orders passed against petitioner by District
Magistrate as well as Commissioner are quashed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 07-01-2025
12:55:57