MASSU Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the respondent No. 1 for externment in Case No. 196/2011 under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (in short ''the Adhiniyam''). By inviting my attention to earlier order dated 7th July, 2009 passed in Case No. 84/Criminal Appeal/08-09, Massu alias Massu Pathan v. State of M.P. by the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal under section 9 of the Adhiniyam (Annexure P-1) whereby the order dated 21-4-2009 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhopal in Case No. 078/2009 has been set aside, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter on the same facts and grounds another Case No. 1/2010 was registered by the District Magistrate, Bhopal under section 3 of the said Adhiniyam against the petitioner and on 29-9-2010 again an order of externment was passed against the petitioner. The said order was again assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal under section 9 of the Adhiniyam to the Commissioner, which was allowed on 7-12-2010 (Annexure P-5) and it was categorically held that the case under section 3 of the said Adhiniyam cannot be registered on the basis of the cases which were registered 16 years ago. Anyhow the petitioner obtained information that again on the same facts and grounds me proceedings 6f externment has been initiated against him in Case No. 196/2011 before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhopal. Hence, this petition has been filed.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cases which were registered against the petitioner several years ago on the basis of those cases, the proceedings under section 3 of the said Adhiniyam cannot be initiated by the District Magistrate. In this context, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. and others, 2009 4 MPLJ 434. Hence, it has been submitted that now there cannot be any order of externment on the basis of those cases. It has also been put forth by her that no notice of hearing of that case which is pending before the Additional District Magistrate has been received by the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State has invited my attention to the document Annexure R-1 filed along with their return giving a list of as many as 18 cases which are registered against the petitioner. It would be germane to quote the said list, which reads, thus:--