Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing of impugned order dated 27-02-2024 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I (respondent 2) whereby externment order was passed against the petitioner for a period of two years, and order dated 10-04-2024 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the externment period was reduced from two years to one year. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits and held that there does not appear to be violation of principles of natural justice, as due notice was given to the petitioner and opportunity was granted to cross-examine the witnesses.
The case relates to externment proceedings being initiated against the petitioner by the Delhi Police under Section 47 and 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, following her involvement in multiple FIRs under the Delhi Excise Act. Initially, a show-cause notice was issued on 20-10-2020, based on three FIRs from 2018 to 2020, which were all pending trial. The petitioner argued that these cases were falsely lodged and did not meet the requirements for externment under the Act, as they spanned different years. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner was found to be involved in three additional FIRs in 2021, 2022, and 2023. A supplementary notice was issued in July 2023. Despite these developments, the petitioner did not present a defense. On 27-02-2024, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police ordered the petitioner’s externment for two years, citing her habitual criminal behavior and the danger she posed to society. This order was based on in-camera witness statements and her involvement in six FIRs. The Appellate Authority later reduced the externment period to one year.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the externment order is unjustified and based on outdated FIRs from 2018, 2019, and 2020 under the Delhi Excise Act, which do not establish a clear and present danger as required under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act. The petitioner emphasized that involvement in a single FIR per year does not make her a habitual offender. Furthermore, the petitioner was denied procedural fairness, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, present defense evidence, and be represented by a lawyer. The petitioner’s involvement in FIRs registered in 2021, 2022, and 2023 has not been proven in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the externment order on both legal and compassionate grounds, as she has a family to support and a husband with medical issues.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the externment order was lawfully passed based on the petitioner’s continuous involvement in criminal activities, which pose a danger to public safety. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend herself, including the provision of legal aid, but she chose not to fully participate in the proceedings by failing to cross-examine witnesses or present a defense. Due to additional FIRs registered during the pendency of the proceedings, a supplementary notice was issued, to which the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner’s classification as a “Bad Character” and the reluctance of witnesses to testify against her further justified the externment. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner’s arguments under Section 47 of Delhi Police Act are incomplete, and judicial review in such cases is limited. Therefore, the externment order should be upheld.
The Court noted that the externment proceeding is not a prosecution for offences in a strict sense but is a measure to prevent the repeated commission of offences by the proposed externee and to break the nexus. The same is resorted to in the discerning few cases where the witnesses are not forthcoming to depose against a desperate criminal on account of apprehension to their safety. The section itself reflects that the provision is to be used under extraordinary circumstances to curb lawless elements in the society.
The Court observed that the facts in the case in hand, patently reflect that the externment order was passed by the Competent Authority on account of repeated involvement of the petitioner in the cases of bootlegging in FIRs registered in the years 2018, 2019 & 2020 followed with further involvement in FIRs under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act in March 2021, March, 2022 and May, 2023. Accordingly, a supplementary notice was issued to the petitioner during the pendency of proceedings with reference to FIRs registered in 2021, 20222 & 2023. The same reflects the propensity of the petitioner to unabatedly continue to indulge in the criminal offences.
The Court further noted that the petitioner also happened to be classified as a ‘Bad Character’ and as such the witnesses are not forthcoming in open to depose against her. Merely because the aforesaid cases under the Delhi Excise Act are pending trial or may be based largely on evidence of police officials, is not legitimate ground to interfere in the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Competent Authority. The acts of repeatedly indulging in bootlegging and illegal sale of liquor, on face of record, cause alarm or danger to the society at large and reflect that the petitioner is of desperate and dangerous character.
Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner being at large in NCT of Delhi or in any part thereof, is apparently hazardous to the community. Thus, the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority that the acts of the proposed externee fall within ambit of Section 47 of D.P. Act, does not call for any interference.
[Monika v. State NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7066, decided on 03-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain & Ms. Sonia Goswami, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates for respondents