• Sun. Jul 14th, 2024

Order Detaining Parvez Bunty Lala Shammi Khan Under Mpda Act Quashed and Set Aside by Division Bench

ByTheCurrentScenario

Jun 29, 2024
Order Detaining Parvez Bunty Lala Shammi Khan Under Mpda Act Quashed and Set Aside by Division BenchDivision Bench quashes order detaining Parvez Bunty Lala Shammi Khan under MPDA Act.

Zafar Khan – Nagpur

Division Bench presided over Vinay Joshi and Vrushali Joshi JJ have quashed and set aside order of detention dated 15-12-2023 passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Yavatmal thereby detaining him under sec 12 (1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.

Parvez Khan @Bunty Lala Shammi Khan was detained under section 3 MPDA Act vide by Collector/District Magistrate, Yavatmal.

Parvez Khan @Bunty Lala Shammi Khan was detained on the allegations that he is a dreaded criminal as a result of which people are scared to depose against him. There were 9 criminal cases registered against him and 2 persons had given in camera statement against him. It was alleged that his activities were disturbing the public order.

Adv Mir Nagman Ali appearing for Parvez Khan @Bunty Lala Shammi Khan submitted that, in-camera statements do not show that same is creating a public order situation. At the most, in-camera statements show a law and order situation which can be dealt with by normal law of the land and detention of the petitioner under MPDA Act was not required.

It was further submitted that, the detaining authority has not recorded his satisfaction to the effect that he has considered the in-camera statements, more particularly their truthfulness of the incidents which is a mandatory requirement of law and the satisfaction being a condition precedent to exercise power under Section 3 of the MPDA Act, 1981. Therefore, the detention order is illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

It was further submitted that, the in-camera statements do not show that same is creating a public order situation. At the most, in-camera statements show a law and order situation which can be dealt with by normal law of the land and detention of the petitioner under MPDA Act was not required

While allowing the writ petition, Hon’ble Division Bench observed-

  1. Three crimes which are considered for passing the detention order are Crime No.0824/2023 which is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said crime the informant asked one of the friends of the petitioner not to abuse, he scolded them, therefore, he came with 7 to 8 persons in City Bar. Crime is registered and notice under Section 41(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was given. Crime No.0976/2023 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner restrained the complainant who is owner of tempo traveller and asked him for money to run his business and when the complainant refused, he beat him with iron rod and gave him threats. The petitioner was on anticipatory bail in this crime. Third crime is Crime No.1359/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant received phone call when he was taking passengers in his vehicles the petitioner gave threats and asked him why he has lodged complaint against him.
  2. Two confidential statements were recorded. In statement of witness “A” he has stated that when he came to his house petitioner he found that petitioner had parked his car in the middle of the road and when he asked to give him side, he abused him and gave threats to him. Confidential witness “B” has stated that petitioner asked him to give money and when he refused to give money at that time he told that he is Bhai of said area and he has to give him money. As he is a Labour he had not lodged complaint against the petitioner because of fear.
  3. From the statements and the crimes registered against him authority has to consider whether breach of public order situation is made out. It does not disclose that it would constitute the act that would disturb the public order

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Document