Karnataka High Court
Praveen S/O. Vittal Gosabal vs Assistant Commissioner And Sub ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393
WP No. 104281 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 104281 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN S/O. VITTAL GOSABAL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. KUMABRGALLI, GOKAK,
TQ: GOKAK-591307, BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
Location: HIGH
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAVI-590001.
DHARWAD
BENCH
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
3. GOKAK POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
GOKAK-591307.
4. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
GOKAK CITY POLICE STATION, GOKAK-591307.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393
WP No. 104281 of 2025
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2025
BEARING NO.JA.J.f/¹Dgï/40/2025-26 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents-State.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner against an order of externment passed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 24.06.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of Gokak having movable and immovable properties. It is submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 made a complaint to the respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, on the ground of 2 -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR cases having been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and action was sought to be taken. On the basis of the said complaint, the same was forwarded to the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act for externment of the petitioner from Gokak to some other place on the ground of there being Sri Mahalakshmi Temple jatra, which is stated to be held after 10 years. The 1st respondent on the basis of a complaint issued a show cause notice which was replied by the petitioner. While replying to the said show cause notice, the petitioner had clearly stated that 2 cases so alleged against him are no more pending as the petitioner was acquitted in the said 2 cases. Without considering the reply and the acquittal of the petitioner in these 2 cases, the impugned order of externment came to be passed externing the petitioner from Gokak to Hubli. The externment order is passed under the provisions of -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act. Aggrieved by the said order of externment passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and without proper application of mind and thorough investigation or procedures is required as contemplated under the Karnataka Police Act.
4. Learned counsel also contends that principles of natural justice has not been followed, thereby the order of externment requires to be quashed. It is also contended that the externment order passed by Respondent No. 1 is mechanical, issued without proper application of mind and without invoking the relevant provisions applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that Section 56 has been wrongly invoked, as it is not applicable to the petitioner, who has not been convicted in any case. Furthermore, the externment order mentions the names of other individuals who have no relation to the petitioner. Therefore all these -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR aspects clearly go to show that the order of externment passed by the 1st respondent is without proper application of mind and without going into the facts of the case of the petitioner, so also not considering the fact that petitioner has been acquitted in 2 cases and no cases are pending and no complaint is lodged as against the petitioner.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated. The right of free movement of the petitioner cannot be restricted merely on the basis of assumptions and without there being any proper legal basis by the respondent No.1. On these grounds seeks to set aside the order of externment passed by the respondent No.1.
6. Per contra, learned AGA sustains the impugned order by contending that the order of externment does not call for interference as before externing the petitioner, a report has been sought for by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR who are the jurisdictional police of Gokak City and have given a positive report with regard to externment. On the basis of the information received and the report submitted, the 1st respondent has proceeded to pass the externment order, after also considering the objections raised by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. Therefore, it is contended that there is no illegality or perversity in the order of externment passed by the respondent No.1.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents-State.
8. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 for disposal of this case.
9. Sections 55 and 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 reads as under:
"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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR notification in the 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.
56. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences.--If a person has been convicted at any time either before or after the commencement of this Act,--
(a) of an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860); or
(b) of an offence under section 6 of 13 of the Mysore Mines Act, 1906 (Mysore Act 4 of 1906); or -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR
(c) of an offence under section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 5 of 1964); or
(d) twice of an offence under section 19 of the Mysore Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1944 (Mysore Act 33 of 1944) or any other corresponding law in force in any area of the State; or
(e) twice of an offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956); or
(f) twice of an offence under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955); or
(g) thrice of an offence within a period of three years under section 78, 79 or 80 of this Act; or
(h) thrice of an offence within a period of three years under sections 32, 34, 37 or 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act 1965, (Karnataka Act 21 of 1966), the Commissioner, the District Magistrate, or any Sub-
divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area or 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 place from which he was directed to remove himself."
10. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was involved in criminal cases in which the petitioner has been acquitted and there are no cases pending against the petitioner even according to the respondents. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56 are not applicable to the petitioner, as they pertain to a person -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR who has been convicted of certain offences and is further engaged or likely to engage in activities that are dangerous or harmful to society. It should involve conduct that is detrimental to society; however, since the petitioner has not been convicted of any offence, the said provision would not be applicable to him.
11. Now, coming to the provisions of Section 55, which may be applicable to the petitioner, it is evident that unless the specific conditions under Section 55 are satisfied and directly relatable to the petitioner, the said provision cannot be invoked against him. To invoke the provisions of Section 55, Respondent No. 1 must be satisfied, based on the material placed before him, that there is a reasonable ground to believe the petitioner is engaged in, or is about to engage in, the commission of an offence involving force or violence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or that he is abetting such an offence. The said provision can also be invoked if the authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds that the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR acts of the person are causing or are likely to cause alarm or danger to others. However, the third proviso to Section 55(c), which relates to epidemic diseases, may not be applicable in the present case.
12. In response to the notice issued, the petitioner has replied and clearly stated that he has been acquitted in two cases and that no cases are currently pending against him. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 ought to have duly considered the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and proceeded to pass orders based on the materials available. However, on careful perusal of the externment order passed by respondent No. 1, paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order reads as follows:
"CzÉà jÃw ¥ÉÇð¸ï C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ ±Àºg À À ¥ÉÇð¸ï gÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ UÉÆÃPÁPÀ £ÀUg À zÀ À ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀAdÄ PÁqÀ¥Àà ªÉÄùÛæ EªÀgÀÄ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¸Àé¨Ás ªÀzª À £ À ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß PÉüÀzªÀ £ À ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ªÀwð¹ ¸Àé¨sÁªÀvÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üAiÀiÁVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÄAeÁUÀv æ Á PÀª æ ÀÄzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀª æ ÀÄ dgÀÄV¹zÀÄÝ, DvÀ£À £ÀqÀĪÀ½PÉ §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV CªÀ¤UÉ PÁ£ÀƤ£À ¨sA À iÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄïÉAzÀ
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393
WP No. 104281 of 2025
HC-KAR
ªÉÄÃ¯É C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¥ÀPæ g À ÀtUÀ¼°
À è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀ®èzÉ E¤ßvÀgÀ ¥ÀPæ g À t À UÀ¼£À ÀÄß GzÀ㫹 UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÉ zÀPÉÌ vÀgÀĪÀ ¸Àé¨sÁªÀzª À £À ÀÄ EgÀÄvÁÛ£.É FvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É E°èAiÀÄ ªÀgU É É ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03 ¥ÀPæ g À t À UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ, ¸Àzg À À 02 ¥ÀPæ g À t À UÀ¼° À è ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è 02 ¥ÀPæ Àgt À UÀ¼ÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ºÀAvÀz° À ègÀÄvÀÛz.É "
13. Paragraph No. 3 does not pertain to the petitioner but refers to one Sanju Kadappa Mestri, who has no relationship whatsoever with the petitioner. It is neither alleged by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner has any connection with this person nor that he is involved in any related activity. It is also relevant to note that the externment order has been passed under Section 56 of the Karnataka Police Act, which is not applicable to the petitioner as he has not been convicted in any case. Under the circumstances, while passing an externment order, it is necessary for Respondent No. 1 to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that a person is engaged in or is about to engage in offences involving force or violence. However, no such objective satisfaction has been recorded based on any cogent material, nor is it the case that the petitioner has been convicted in any criminal case. The primary
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR requirement is the proper application of mind and the correct application of the provisions of law before passing an externment order, failing which it deprives a person of their fundamental right to free movement. In the present case, the petitioner has been externed to another place without proper application of mind.
14. In view of the above, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the externment order has been passed mechanically, without proper application of mind, and by wrongly invoking the provisions of Section 56. Furthermore, I find no materials have been placed on record to establish the requirements contemplated under Section 55 of the Act. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The order of externment dated 24.06.2025 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby quashed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8393 WP No. 104281 of 2025 HC-KAR iii. Learned AGA to intimate the order passed to the authorities.
iv. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
KGK
CT-MCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17