SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sanjay Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPCR 369/2016



Advocates:
['AMRITO DAS', 'A G', '', 'VIMAL KUMAR TONDEY', 'BASANT DEWANGAN', 'ANUP MAJUMDAR']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPCR No. 369 of 2016

Sanjay Agrawal S/o Shri Mahangilal Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years R/o

Schoolpara, Thana And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Mandir Hasod, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. District Magistrate (Collector) , Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

3. Superintendent Of Police, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

5. Station House Officer, Thana Baikunthpur, Baikunthpur, District Korea,

Chhattisgarh

6. Station House Officer, Thana Charcha, Charcha, District Korea, Chhattisgarh

7. Shri S. Prakash, District Magistrate (Collector), Baikunthpur, District Korea,

Chhattisgarh,

8. Shri Sujeet Kumar, Superintendent Of Police, Baikunthpur, District Korea,

Chhattisgarh

9. Vineet Dubey, Station House Officer, Thana Baikunthpur, Baikuthpur, District

Korea, Chhattisgarh

10.J. S. Kanwar, Station House Officer, Thana Charcha, Charcha, District Korea,

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Shri Amrito Das, Advocate

For Respondent/State

:

Shri R.K. Bhagat, Dy. GA

For Respondents No.9 & 10:

Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

31/01/2019

1. Heard.

2. The present petition is to quash the notice dated 19.10.2016 (Annexure P-1)

which was issued under Section 5 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha

Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1990'), whereby a

notice was served to the petitioner that externment proceedings would be

drawn if the reply is not filed. In such notice reference of 11 criminal cases was

made and the list of those cases was attached.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 19.10.2016 if it

is compared with the time, it defeats the very object of the Adhiniyam, 1990 for

which it was issued. It is contended that the entire object of the Adhiniyam,

1990 is to arrest any ensuing immediate offence and such cannot be continued

for the time immemorial as it would defeat the life & liberty of the petitioner by

efflux of time itself. He further submits that the notice cannot be continued as a

arm twisting method against the object & intent of the legislation. He referred to

the case of Sudeep Patel Vs. State of M.P. & ors. {2018 (3) M.P.L.J. 413} and

submits that under the similar circumstances, the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh has evaluated the object and has defined that the the Adhiniyam, 1990

is only for the limited purpose.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that as many as 11 cases were to the

credit of the petitioner. He further submits that all the cases would reveal that

3

under Section 506 IPC the FIR was attached. He further submits that

continuous threats were extended, therefore, if the person is credited with such

number of criminal cases, the State was right in their act to implement Section 5

(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

attached with this petition.

6. The notice served to the petitioneri.e. Annexure P-1 is perused. Annexure P-1

finds a reference of 11 criminal cases by the District Magistrate, Korea. The list

of 11 cases, which is attached reveals that at serial No.1 one case was bearing

No.99/07 was way back of the year 2007, subsequent two cases at serial Nos.2

& 3 the case number is one and same i.e. 26/12, at serial No.4 the case is

bearing No.66/16 which is under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, whereas

at serial Nos. 5 & 6 again particulars of one case bearing No.132/16 is given

which is under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 186, 323, 294, 506B & 336 IPC

and lastly at serial No.7 one another case is mentioned bearing No.09/16 under

Section 110 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, at serial Nos. 2 & 3 and 5 & 6 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top