Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1166 (JHR)

Godbin Khan @ Godwin Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, S.C. (L&C) appearing for the State-respondents. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.C.A. Case No. 01 of 2017, whereby and where under, an order of externment under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (for short the ''Act'') has been passed as against him and the petitioner has been directed to take prior permission from the respondent No. 2 in case he needs to appear in the criminal cases on the dates fixed. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 is bad in law in view of the fact that there is no nexus with the criminal cases pending and the order of externment so passed. Learned counsel further submits that the cases on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed are stale cases which could not have been taken into consideration for passing an order under Section 3 of the Act. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is not an antisocial element in terms of Section 2(d)(1) of the Act. 4. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) appearing for the State respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the petitioner being an antisocial element and several cases are pending against him, the order of extenment has rightly been passed against the petitioner. 5. The facts of the case reveals that on 14.12.2016, the respondent No. 4 had sought for initiation of externment of the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act before the District Magistrate, Dhanbad on the ground that five criminal cases are pending against the petitioner apart from seven Station Diary Entries. The respondent No. 2 on 20.12.2016 has also sought for initiation of extenment of the petitioner on the same grounds mentioned by the respondent No. 4. Accordingly a case being C.C.A. Case No. 01/2017 was registered by the District Magistrate and the petitioner was issued a show cause to explain as to why an appropriate order under Section 3 of the Act be not passed against the petitioner. Accordingly a case being C.C.A. Case No. 01/2017 was registered by the District Magistrate and the petitioner was issued a show cause to explain as to why an appropriate order under Section 3 of the Act be not passed against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a show cause on 20.01.2017 stating therein that all the cases are stale and station diary entries cannot be made a basis for passing an order of externment against the petitioner. However vide order dated 01.03.2017 which is impugned to the present application, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad had passed an order of externment under Section 3 of the Act and the petitioner was further directed to take permission from the respondent No. 2 if he is required to appear before the learned trial court in the criminal cases pending against him. The impugned order dated 03.02.2017 reveals that five cases against the petitioner which includes Bankmore P.S. Case No. 44 of 2009, Bankmore P.S. Case No. 45 of 2009, Bankmore P.S. Case No. 202 of 2011, Bankmore P.S. Case No. 346 of 2012 and Bankmore P.S. Case No. 43 of 2016 are pending. Although out of five cases, four cases are stale, but Bankmore P.S. Case No. 43 of 2016 was recently instituted under Section 341,323.379,307 and 387 I.P.C. Therefore it can be said that Bankmore P.S. Case No. 43 of 2016 has a direct nexus and is in close proximity to the order of externment passed against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner comes within the definition of antisocial element as he is an accused of committing offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is no doubt that stale cases cannot form the basis of passing an order of exterment, but considering the fact about initiation of a recent criminal proceeding against the petitioner juxtaposed with the criminal background, the petitioner is having, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad was well within his jurisdiction to pass an order of externment under Section 3 of the of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act and in such circumstances therefore no cause exists to interfere in the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.C.A. Case No. 01/2017 and therefore having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.