RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 25-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
RAHMAT KHAN @ RAMMU BISMILLAH
v.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2021)
AUGUST 25, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – s.56(1)(a)(b) – Externment
order – The State Government introduced a scheme for the upliftment
of the Muslim community by providing quality education to Muslim
children – The State announced the disbursement of grants to 33
Madrasas of Amravati District for the Financial Year 2014-2015 –
Appellant came to know of irregularities in the running of Madrasas,
including misappropriation of public money distributed to Madrasas
in the said District – Pursuant thereto, various complaints were made
– The appellant requested the Collector as also the police to
investigate misappropriation of Government grants by Madrasas
in collusion with Government officials – In retaliation, affected
persons filed complaints against the Appellant u/ss.384, 452, 294,
506(B), 34 IPC – The appellant also filed a Public Interest Litigation
– Thereafter, appellant received a notice u/s. 56(1)(a)(b) of 1951
Act and externment proceedings were initiated against the appellant
by Police – By an order of externment dated 07.05.2018, the
appellant was directed not to enter or return to the District for a
period of one year from the date on which he leaves, or is taken out
of the District – Held: An externment order may sometimes be
necessary for maintenance of law and order – However the drastic
action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to
maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public
tranquility and peace – In the instant case, it is patently clear that
the impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints
lodged by the appellant against government officials, some Madrasas
and persons connected with such Madarasas who later lodged FIRs
against the appellant – The FIRs are clearly vindictive, retaliatory
and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant and stifle his voice –
On perusal of the responses of government authorities to queries
raised by the appellant under the Right to Information Act clearly
indicate that the complaints are not frivolous ones, without substance
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 571
571
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
– Thus, the impugned externment order cannot be sustained and is
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Sections 56 to 59 of the Maharashtra Police
Act, 1951 are intended to prevent lawlessness and deal with a
class of lawless elements in society who cannot be brought to
book by established methods of penal action, upon judicial trial.
[Para 33][587-F]
2. An externment order may sometimes be necessary for
maintenance of law and order. However the drastic action of
externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain
law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public
tranquility and peace. In this case, it is patently clear that the
impugned externment order was an outcome of the complaints
lodged by the Appellant against government officials, some
Madrasas and persons connected with such Madarasas who later
lodged FIRs against the Appellant. The FIRs are clearly
vindictive, retaliatory and aimed to teach a lesson to the Appellant
and stifle his voice. [Para 34][587-G-H; 588-A]
3. In the facts and circumstances of  this case,  the notices
of externment and the impugned externment order based on
Crime Nos 344 of 2017, 352 of 2017 registered with Nagpuri
Gate Police Station and Crime No.501 of 2017 registered with
the Kotwali Police Station in Amravati City are patently arbitrary,
mala fide, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. [Para
35][588-B]
4. It is patently clear that pursuant to a complaint dated
14.9.2017 an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy District
Collector against the Director (previously Deputy Director) of
Education, District Planning Officer Ravindra Kale, Extension
Officer Sandip Bodhke. The Inquiry Report along with
explanation of the officers has been sent to the Chamber Officer
of the Minority Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
for further action.  The Director (previously Deputy Director) of
Education, District Planning Officer lodged FIR No.501/2017
dated 13th October 2017 against the Appellant under Section 384
of the Indian Penal Code, exactly within one month from the date
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
of the Appellant’s complaint against him, in respect of illegalities
in relat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.