Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Parosiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2018
1 W.P. No. 5103/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE MS.VANDANA KASREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5103/2018
Rakesh Prosiya
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri A.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
ORDER
(26.07.2018) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 18.10.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 in appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Police, Betul submitted its report on 29.11.2016 before respondent No. 3 stating that 13 2 W.P. No. 5103/2018 criminal cases are registered against the petitioner and also referring Ishtgasa under Section 107 and 116 (3) of the Cr.P.C. It has further been stated that in the said report, the petitioner is involved in commission of the offences and preventive action has been taken against the petitioner and the same has been ineffective. For the said purpose, he made a recommendation to the Collector for taking action against the petitioner under Section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'). On the basis of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.07.2017 whereby the petitioner has been directed to file reply of the notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 14.08.2017 and stated that he has not committed any crime and no case has been registered against the petitioner since 2009 but the police of Police Station Amla, District Betul has falsely implicated the petitioner in false cases. Further it is stated that in most of the cases registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted by the trial Court. The 3 W.P. No. 5103/2018 learned Collector after hearing both the parties has passed an order dated 18.10.2017 under Section 5(a) & (b) of the Adhiniyam for externment of the petitioner from District Betul and other adjacent district. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2. The Commissioner vide order dated 22.02.2018 has dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that both the orders are illegal and arbitrary. He submits that on earlier occasion also i.e. in the year 2013 and 2016, similar action has been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police Betul but the Collector vide orders dated 07.03.2013 and 17.05.2016 has quashed the report of the Superintendent of Police, Betul holding that the reasons mentioned in the report are not sufficient to take action under the Adhiniyam and after 2009, no case has been registered against the petitioner. He further 4 W.P. No. 5103/2018 submits that in most of the cases which are registered against the petitioner he has been acquitted by the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner has also made a complaint against respondent No. 5 that he is making a false complaint against the petitioner but no action has been taken by the authorities. He, therefore, filed W.P. No. 4177/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2015 with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the complaint of the petitioner by speaking order. He further submits that the findings given by the Collector that the petitioner is a habitual offender and several criminal cases registered against him is also incorrect. He further submits that the offences complained against the petitioner are of the years 2000 to 2016. He further submits that the offences registered against him they are not of a serious nature and respondent No. 5 has deliberately filed Istagasa under Section 107, 110, 116 of the Cr.P.C against him to prepare false cases against him. However, all these facts have not been considered by the 5 W.P. No. 5103/2018 respondents while passing the impugned order.
4. The respondents have filed their reply and in the said reply, the respondents have stated that the Superintendent of Police, Betul vide communication dated 29.11.2016 addressed to the District Magistrate, Betul has informed regarding the conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in antisocial activities and the general public is so terrorized with the conduct of the petitioner that they are fearful in lodging the report against the petitioner in the Police Station. It has further been stated that because of presence of the petitioner in Betul, the law and order problem is adversely affected and the public peace and tranquility is likely to be disturbed. In the said report, the Superintendent of Police has stated that as many as 13 cases have been registered against the petitioner since 2000 to 2016, therefore, the Superintendent of Police has forwarded the case of the petitioner to the District Magistrate for initiation of externment proceedings under Section 5(a) & (b) of the Adhiniyam. On the basis of the 6 W.P. No. 5103/2018 report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.07.2017. The reply was filed by the petitioner of the said show cause notice but the same was unsatisfactory and the Collector, therefore, passed an order dated 18.10.2017 thereby externing the petitioner from Betul and other adjoining cities. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and as many as 5 prosecution witnesses were examined. The petitioner was also given opportunity to adduce his evidence. The petitioner got examined as many as three witnesses who were further cross-examined by the prosecution. The District Magistrate after considering the totality of the circumstances has passed the impugned order. The respondents have further stated that since 2000 as many as 13 offences have been registered against the petitioner under various sections of Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Excise Act and Gambling Act and as many as eight preventive proceedings have been initiated against 7 W.P. No. 5103/2018 the petitioner. The petitioner has been acquitted in most of the cases on the basis of compromise. The petitioner has also not filed any document in order to demonstrate that he has been acquitted in some of the cases on merits.
5. So far as, assertion of the petitioner that on two occasions, the proceedings of externment were dropped by the District Magistrate in its order dated 07.05.2013 and order dated 07.06.2016, the respondents have stated that the District Magistrate was of the opinion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner after the year 2009 and thus, in the year 2013 to 2016, the proceedings of externment were dropped. The report of the Superintendent of Police also did not contain the fact that the petitioner has committed offence after 2009. In the year 2010, two offences were registered against the petitioner under the Excise Act and in the year 2012, offence under Sections 341, 204, 506 and 34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner. In the year 2013 and 2014, the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the 8 W.P. No. 5103/2018 petitioner and in the year 2016, two offences were registered against the petitioner under Section 4(a) of the Gambling Act and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Thus, it is clear that even after the year 2009, the petitioner was continuously involved in heinous crime and, therefore, his presence at District Betul is likely to disturb and affect the peace in the city. The respondents have further submitted that both the orders are based on material which has been brought on record and does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, the Superintendent of Police, Betul vide letter dated 29.11.2016 addressed to the District Magistrate Betul regarding the conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in antisocial activities. It has further been informed that because of presence of the petitioner in Betul law and order problem is adversely affected and the public peace and tranquility is 9 W.P. No. 5103/2018 likely to get disturbed. Since, 2000 to 2016, thirteen criminal cases were registered against him. In such circumstances, the Superintendent of Police requested the District Magistrate for initiation of externment proceedings under Sections 5(a) & (b) of the Adhiniyam. On the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, a show cause notice was issued on 03.07.2017 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. After considering the reply, the Collector has passed an order of externment dated 18.10.2017. Against which an appeal was preferred, the same was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.02.2018. Against the said orders, the present petition has been filed.
8. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and as many as five witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the petitioner was also given opportunity to adduce his evidence. The petitioner has produced three witnesses and 10 W.P. No. 5103/2018 they were further examined by the prosecution. In the present case, 13 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner from year 2000 to 2016 and as many as eight preventive orders were passed.
9. So far as, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the Superintendent of Police has given the same report for initiating the proceedings for externment against the petitioner and they were dropped by the District Magistrate in its order dated 07.05.2013 and 07.06.2016. Now, therefore, 3rd time on the basis of the said allegations or criminal offences, the order of externment could not have been passed cannot be accepted. The record shows that in order dated 07.05.2013, District Magistrate was of the opinion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner after 2009 and, therefore, in the year 2013 to 2016, the proceedings of externment were stopped. The Collector was of the similar views when the order is passed on 07.06.2016. However, after 2009, in the year 2010 two offences under Excise Act were registered 11 W.P. No. 5103/2018 against the petitioner and in the year 2012 offence under Sections 341, 204, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. In the year 2013 and 2014, the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and in the year 2016, two offences were registered against the petitioner under Section 4(a) of the Gambling Act and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
10. Thus, from the fact, it is clear that even after the year 2009, the petitioner was continuously involved in criminal activities. The Collector in his order has specifically observed that due to the criminal activities of the petitioner, no witnesses or any resident of the Village coming forward to register a case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed any document before the Court showing that he has been acquitted in the criminal cases which has been registered against him. Thus, on the basis of overall record of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere into the said writ petition.
12 W.P. No. 5103/2018
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar) Judge ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2018.07.27 15:07:07 +05'30'