Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the orders by Collector and District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner, Shahdol, which externed the petitioner from District Umariya and neighboring districts for one year, a single-judge bench of Vivek Agarwal, J., deemed both the orders as cryptic and arbitrary and appearing to be an attempt on behalf the mighty State to curtail the personal freedom of an individual and quashed them.
In the instant matter, the petitioner challenged the externment order and contended that she had only six pending cases against her, but none resulted in conviction. It was stated that two of these cases were under Section 110 of the CrPC, two under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC, and two under the NDPS Act. The petitioner contended that the externment order was arbitrary and violated Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam). It was contended that the primary witness, SHO, admitted that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and that there was no public apprehension regarding her activities.
However, the respondent justified the issuance of the externment order based on the petitioner’s alleged criminal activities. It was contended that the impugned order was passed in compliance with Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
The Court noted that Section 5(a) of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam requires that a person’s movements or acts must cause alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property and Section 5(b) necessitates that there be reasonable grounds to believe that the person is involved in offenses related to force, violence, or other serious crimes, and that witnesses fear testifying against them.
The Court noted that the petitioner was implicated solely based on the statement of an accused, without any recovery of contraband. It was noted that no statements were recorded from individuals claiming public fear due to the petitioner’s actions, no cases were registered against her for rioting, public disorder, or other major crimes. The Court further noted that the police had not issued any prior notice to the petitioner before seeking her externment.
The Court noted that the Collector’s order was passed without fulfilling the statutory requirements of Section 5(b) the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam and the Divisional Commissioner merely upheld the Collector’s order without independent application of mind. The Court held that the authorities acted arbitrarily, seemingly under extraneous pressures rather than legal considerations.
The Court deemed the externment order dated 21-10-2024 and the appellate order dated 20-01-2025, cryptic, arbitrary, and an undue restriction on personal liberty and quashed them. The Court directed the State to bear the litigation costs of ₹ 25,000/- payable to the petitioner within seven days.
[Munni v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2684, Decided on 28-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Counsel for the Respondents/State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
