Karnataka High Court
Imran Alias Goora S/O. Abdul Nabisab vs State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374
CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.102409 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
IMRAN @ GOORA
S/O. ABDUL NABISAB,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING AT: WATER PETER,
R/O. WARD NO.9,
MILLARPET,
BALLARI-583101.
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S ...PETITIONER
HARIHAR
Location: (BY SHRI R. M. JAVED AND
High Court
of SHRI ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATES)
Karnataka,
Dharwad
Bench
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF HOME AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
BALLARI-583101,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374
CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BALLARI DIST.
BALLARI-583101,
REP. BY ITS S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
4. POLICE INSPECTOR,
BRUCEPET P.S. BALLARI-583101,
REP. BY ITS S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN SAM/KAM/MAG/GADIPARU/11/2025-26,
DATED 16.06.2025, WHICH DIRECTED THE PETITIONER TO BE
REMOVED FROM BALLARI TO SULLA P.S. LIMITS, DAKSHIN
KANNADA FROM 16.06.2025 TO 16.09.2025 (ANNEXURE-C), IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374
CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS" for short) praying to quash the externment order dated 16.06.2025 passed against the petitioner in Sam / Kam / MAG / GADIPARU / 11 / 2025 - 25 passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ("K.P. Act" for short).
2. The petitioner is working as a coolie and he is a resident of Ward No.9, Millarpet, Ballari is alleged to have been involved in various cases. On 10.05.2025, the Police Inspector, Brucepet Police Station (respondent No.4), filed a petition under Section 55 of the K.P. Act before the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballari alleging that the petitioner was involved in several cases and was a rowdy sheeter and sought an externment order. The Assistant Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballari, (respondent No.2) issued a show cause notices on -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR 29.05.2025 to the petitioner under Section 58 of K.P. Act, seeking a reply as to why the petitioner should not be exiled from Ballari. On 10.06.2025, the petitioner submitted a reply to respondent No.2. On 10.06.2025 respondent No.2 passed an externment order against the petitioner, directing the Police to send the petitioner out of Ballari to Sulla of Dakshin Kannada for a period of six months from 16.06.2025 till 16.09.2025. Thus, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the said order in this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no grounds have been made out in the entire order passed by respondent No.2 warranting the exile of the petitioner or to invoke such stringent measures. There is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any of offences under the Indian Penal Code / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to attract Section 55 of the K.P. Act. There is no allegation of any danger or harm to persons or property caused by the petitioner. The order of externment has curtailed movement of the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that even though an appeal is provided -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR under Section 59 of the K.P. Act, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 of BNSS is maintainable. On these grounds, he prayed for quashing of the impugned order of externment passed by respondent No.2 under Section 55 of the K.P. Act.
4. Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondents contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and rowdy sheeter. He is involved in all 11 cases. Considering these said aspects, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the impugned order. He further contended that there is a remedy of appeal available under Section 59 of the K.P. Act and therefore, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is not maintainable. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Perused the material available on record. The contention of the learned HCGP that the petitioner has an appeal remedy under Section 59 of the K.P. Act is required to be rejected in view of position of law declared by Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ambadas and -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR others vs. State of Karnataka and another1, wherein this Court at paragraph No.5, held 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 statute, the High Court cannot and need not give a go by invoking the provisions of S. 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 S. 59 of the Act a remedy by appeal is available to any person aggrieved by such order of externment passed under S. 55 of the Act and the appeal lies to the Government, but from a reading of S. 59 together with S. 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 S. 60 of the Act - (1) where the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of S. 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 S. 1 ILR 1987 KAR 1481 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR
55. Forming of such opinion by the authority as to the willingness of the witnesses to come forward in public to give evidence against the persons sought to be proceeded is a must; because under clause (b) of S. 55, externment order could be made only where it appears there are reasonable grounds for believing that person of parsons in 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 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, 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 movement and acts of the person in question alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Likewise, there must be sufficient -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of 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 S. 55 having not been fulfilled, the impugned order of externment passed cannot be sustained."
6. In the light of the order being passed for externment of petitioner under Section 55 of the K.P. 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 section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR 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, 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."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. On perusal of the report of respondent No.4 and the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, there is no allegation of petitioner involving in force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of IPC or BNS or in abetment of any such offences. The petitioner has been acquitted in all 9 cases and two cases are pending, wherein, the Taluka Executive Magistrate has issued proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence under Section 160 of IPC. There is also no allegation against the petitioner that respondent No.2 is of the opinion that witnesses are not wiling to come forward to give evidence in public case against petitioner for the reason of apprehension on their part as regards to safety of their persons or property. Therefore, clause (b) of Section 55 of the K.P. Act is not made out. What is alleged against the petitioner is that, he is involved under Section 160 of IPC. 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 K.P. Act is also not
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8374 CRL.P No. 102409 of 2025 HC-KAR made out. As there is no out break of epidemic decease, clause (c) of Section 55 of the K.P. Act is not attracted.
8. Considering the above aspects, on perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 and the report of respondent No.4, clauses (a), (b) and c) of Section 55 of the K.P. Act are not made out to pass the order of externment. In light of the above, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed against the petitioner in Sam/Kam/MAG/ GADIPARU/11/2025 - 26 passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-
Divisional Magistrate under Section 55 of the K.P. Act, is hereby quashed.
In view of the disposal of the petition pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40