IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA th ON THE 7 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 22244 of 2024 MD. MUJAHID @ MANJOOR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

ORDER With consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the following relief.

"Relief prayed for:-

It is humbly prayed that in the interest of justice impugned notice u/S.110 of Cr.P.C as well as u/S.8 of State Security Act may kindly be quashed and entire proceedings initiated on basis of said notice may kindly be quashed / dropped.

2. Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deem proper to grant in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted in the interest of justice."

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that the externment proceedings under Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1990") have been initiated against him in Case No. 87/24/105- B/2024 dated 25.04.2024 by the Commissioner of Police, District Indore vide his show cause notice dated 25.04.2024 as 12 criminal cases have been registered against him during the year 1995 to 2022. However, prior to issuance of show cause notice dated 25.04.2024, proceedings under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1980") were also initiated against him on 16.08.2022. The petitioner was detained by the Collector, District Indore for a period of more than a month as is evident by order dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-P/5).

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, the order passed by the Collector, was also set aside by the Advisory Board and the petitioner was released in the month of September, 2022. He has further submitted that on the same set of offences, barring one, on the basis of which the externment proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, he was already detained under the provisions of the Act, 1980. It is hence submitted that in light of preventive detention under the Act, 1980, proceedings initiated against the petitioner under provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1990 are not liable to be continued.

5. In support of his submissions, Shri Soni has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Annu @ Anurag s/o Laxminarayan Raikwar vs. State of M.P. and another reported as 2023 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 141 in which it is held that if the petitioner was under preventive detention under the NSA, he cannot be proceeded with under the Adhiniyam, 1990 on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH same set of facts and offences.

6. Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the petition. However, it is not denied that on the same set of offences on the basis of which the externment proceedings have been initiated, the petitioner was also detained under the provisions of the Act, 1980.

7. Heard the rival submissions and perused of the documents filed on record, as also the order passed by this Court in the case of Annu @ Anurag (supra), in which, in para 6, it is held as under:

"06. From the record, it is apparent that while passing the impugned order of externment dated 07.12.2021, the District Magistrate, Ujjain has relied upon the 32 criminal cases registered against the petitioner till 11.7.2020; whereas the order of detention was passed on 19.8.2020 and in which also the same cases were referred to.

It is also found that the order of detention was passed only for a period of three months which has already expired and the petitioner has also not challenged the same, and thereafter, no other case has been registered against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the availability of alternative reme