Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sachin M.R., a permanent resident of Mallahalli Village, Mysore District, challenged an externment order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mysore, under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The order externed the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere for a period from 20.03.2024 to 10.06.2024. The petitioner claimed to be a businessman residing with his family. The impugned order was based on the petitioner's involvement in two criminal cases: Crime No.46/2021 under Sections 504, 323, 143, 147, 149 IPC (pending investigation) and Crime No.167/2022 under similar sections (also pending investigation), and the fact that a rowdy sheet was opened against him. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without application of mind and without any material to show that his presence was causing public alarm or breach of peace. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, defended the order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the externment order was unsustainable. The court noted that only one criminal case was pending against the petitioner (Crime No.46/2021) and that the other case (Crime No.167/2022) was not mentioned in the order. The court observed that the authority had not applied its mind to the necessity of externment and had not considered whether less drastic measures could be taken. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner, as the externment order was the basis for the rowdy sheet.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Externment - Section 55 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Requirement of Material - The order of externment must be based on material showing that the person's movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause danger, harm, or alarm to the public or lead to breach of peace. Mere pendency of a criminal case or existence of a rowdy sheet does not suffice. The authority must apply its mind to the necessity of externment and consider less drastic measures. (Paras 4-6) B) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Judicial Review of Externment Orders - The High Court can quash an externment order if it is passed without application of mind, based on irrelevant material, or is disproportionate. The order must be supported by reasons and must not be arbitrary. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an externment order passed under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, based on a single pending criminal case and a rowdy sheet, without any material to show that the petitioner's presence is causing public alarm or breach of peace, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the second respondent, and directed the respondents to close the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner.
Law Points
- Externment order under Section 55 of Karnataka Police Act
- 1963 requires material to show that the person's movements or acts are causing or calculated to cause danger
- harm
- or alarm to the public or lead to breach of peace. Mere pendency of a criminal case or existence of a rowdy sheet does not automatically justify externment. The authority must apply its mind to the necessity of externment and the availability of less drastic measures.
