SACHIN @ SONU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.5.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the first impugned order) passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North -East, Delhi, in case No.1828/44/Ext.Cell/NE/NE District, whereby externment of the petitioner from the local limits of Delhi was directed. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 31.7.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the second impugned order) passed by Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, whereby Appeal No.102/2013 filed by the petitioner, against the order of externment dated 21.5.2013, was dismissed.

(2.) THE necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present petition, are that on a proposal for externment of the petitioner made by SHO, P.S. Harsh Vihar, through ACP, Seelam Pur, Delhi, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North -East, held proceedings for externment of the petitioner on 30.8.2012. During the course of the externment proceedings, according to the externment order, independent witnesses of the area were examined in -camera since they were not coming forward to make a statement against the petitioner in public due to apprehension with regard to their safety. Consequently, a notice under Section 50 of Delhi Police Act, 1978, was issued to the petitioner. The notice contained the following details of offences committed by the petitioner:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders have been passed in utter violation of the statutory guidelines and the directions issued by the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. Counsel further submits that the impugned orders were passed in a casual and mechanical manner and, thus, the same are liable to be quashed. It has been strongly urged before this Court that the respondents overlooked a very material fact that in the FIRs mentioned at Sl.Nos.3 to 10 and 12 of the above tabulation, the petitioner was discharged since he had been falsely implicated in those cases and there was no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. Counsel further contends that in case FIR No.36/2011, mentioned at Sl.No.1 of the above tabulation, the petitioner has never been arrested since there is no evidence found against him and, thus, to say that the petitioner would face trial or that the witnesses would not depose against him was incorrect. Rendering an explanation with regard to FIR No.397/2011, mentioned at Sl.No.13 of the above tabulation, counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery has been affected from the petitioner, nor charges have been framed against him and, thus, in all likelihood, the petitioner would be discharged from the aforesaid cases. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in FIR No.111/2011, mentioned at Sl.No.2, and FIR No.277/2011, mentioned at Sl.No.11 of the tabulation, charge sheets have been filed and evidence of the witnesses are being recorded and, thus, it is incorrect to state that the public witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner or that the witnesses were apprehensive of their safety and security. Counsel also contends that no one from the locality has complained against the petitioner and, thus, the ground to hold that the petitioner is a dangerous or desperate character or a threat to the locality, is bad. It is, thus, prayed that both the impugned orders be quashed.