AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned advocate Mr. M. R. Molavi for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances emerging from record, both the parties have agreed to dispose of this petition at this stage, hence, rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent - State.
The petitioner is apprehending an order of externment pursuant to show-cause notice dated 8.8.2016. It is undisputed fact that initially, petitioner has preferred Special Criminal Application (against order of externment) No. 6039 of 2016 so as to protect himself from the proposed order of externment pursuant to same show-cause notice dated 8.8.2016. It is also undisputed fact that such show-cause notice is disclosing only two FIRs, based upon which, respondent - competent authority has called upon the petitioner to show cause that why he should not be externed. These two FIRs are registered with Shahpur police station, Ahmedabad, first FIR being C.R.No.II-3024 of 2015 u/ss. 294(B), 323, 427, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ); whereas, second FIR is registered as C.R. No.II-3047 of 2016 u/ss.294(B), 506(1) of IPC read with Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. It is contended by the petitioner that, practically, there is a family dispute between the brothers and therefore, complaints were filed by his family members only to settle the family dispute regarding succession of properties of his father. Therefore, so far as second FIR being
Shahpur police station C.R. No.II-3047 of 2016 is concerned, the petitioner has filed Special Criminal Application (quashing) No.5854 of 2016 to quash the further proceeding of such FIR. Such petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 12.8.2016 by co-ordinate Bench. The FIR being C.R.No.II-3047 of 2016 registered with Shahpur police station, Ahmedabad stood quashed and all the consequential proceedings pursuant thereto, stand terminated, is the final determination and order of the co-ordinate Bench.
In view of such judgment, when co-ordinate Bench has already quashed one of the FIRs, with a specific determination and direction that all the consequential proceedings pursuant to such FIR, shall stand terminated, practically, show-cause notice, based upon such FIR, cannot sustain and thereby, practically, competent authority has to reject or dismiss or recall such show-cause notice, without fail. Probably, considering such situation, petitioner has withdrawn Special Criminal Application No.6036 of 2016, disclosing that he would approach the competent authority to place such material on record by filing reply.
Pursuant to such disclosure before the court, the petitioner has already filed a small reply on 25.10.2017 before the competent authority, disclosing the fact that one of the FIRs has been quashed and conveying that, now, based upon remaining one FIR, there cannot be order of externment from different districts because all such alleged offences are based upon personal family dispute and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is to be externed from the area as his activities cannot be termed as anti-social activities.
In view of above facts and circumstances, when petitioner has already submitted his report before the competent authority, the competent authority is directed to take appropriate decision within four weeks'' from the date of receipt of writ of such judgment. However, it is made clear that, in any case, if the competent authority wants to proceed further to extern the petitioner, then, even in that case, considering the judgment and order dated 12.8.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 5854 of 2016, there would be requirement of issuance of fresh show-cause notice. Therefore, in any case, if at all the competent authority wants to continue the proceedings of externment against the petitioner, then, no such order of externment, shall be executed for six weeks'' from the date of such judgment, so as to enable the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, the present Special Criminal Application is allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.