Externment orders under the Delhi Police Act can be justified based on habitual criminal behavior posing a danger to society, even if FIRs are not within a year of the order.

ORDER :

1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of petitioner for quashing of impugned order dated 27.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2-Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South West District whereby externment order was passed against the petitioner for a period of two years, and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Appellate Authority, i.e. Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi, whereby externment period was reduced from two years to one year.

2. In brief, externment proceedings against the petitioner were initiated by respondent No.2 by issuing of show-cause notice under Section 47 read with Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter, referred to as the "D.P. Act") on 20.10.2020, on the basis of her involvement in three FIRs under Delhi Excise Act as under:

The activities of the petitioner were further stated to be menace and hazardous to the community.

3. In reply to the show-cause notice, petitioner submitted that all the three cases under the Delhi Excise Act had been falsely planted upon her and do not warrant the initiation of externment proceedings. It was further stated that in terms of Section 47 of the D.P. Act, at least three cases should be registered against the petitioner in a preceding year, and the said condition does not stand fulfilled in the case of petitioner, since all the three FIRs were registered in the consecutive years 2018, 2019 and 2020 respectively. She pointed out that the petitioner is not involved in any offence involving physical harm or injury to any person or offence involving moral turpitude.

4. During pendency of proceedings before respondent No.2/Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, a supplementary notice was issued to petitioner on 14.07.2023 since she was found to be involved in three additional FIRs under Delhi Excise Act during the years 2021, 2022 & 2023 as under:

5. In response thereof, neither any reply, nor any defence evidence was led on behalf of petitioner. The matter was finally considered by the Competent Authority/respondent No.2 on appearance of petitioner in person alongwith counsel and vide order dated 27.02.2024, petitioner was externed for a period of two years for the reasons recorded as under: “….. Before deciding the case, I have perused the statements of witnesses recorded in camera by the then Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police-1, South West District, Delhi. I am fully satisfied that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to make statements in public against her due to apprehension with regard to the safety of their person and property but they have deposed so in camera. I have also carefully gone through the record and other relevant material available on file. The record suggested that the Respondent is involved in 06 cases of Excise Act. A close scrutiny of the record clearly indicates that there are sufficient grounds to conclude that she is actively involved in these cases. Besides, the respondent is a Bad Character (B.C.) of Bundle-A of P.S. Sagarpur, Delhi and during the course of proceedings, she was found involved in more criminal cases. Due to her continuous and persistent activities, the Respondent is hazardous to the society. The subsequent conduct of the Respondent during Externment proceedings reflects that she is a habitual criminal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1999)