1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1625 OF 2011 Mohammed Ismail Gani Memon ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Ashish Chavan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R.V. Newton, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner extensively. 2. The order of externment recorded by the externing authority and confirmed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. EXT-2011/49/VISHA3(a) dated 9.5.2011 externing the petitioner for the period of one year from the area of Commissionerate, Mumbai and also Thane District is questioned. 3. On going through both orders, I find that Crime No. 72 of 2008 registered at Malvani Police Station emerges out of the controversy of 2 sister-in-law with her husband giving rise to the infraction of section 498A of I.P.C. The learned counsel placed reliance on affidavit of the complainant informing that the controversies are settled. That apart , the detenue applicant has been acquitted of the said proceedings. 4. The other crime being Crime No. 238 of 2011 of Malvani Police station is dated 18.9.2010 giving rise to the offence under section 323, 326 and 506(2) of I.PC. The authorities basically lost sight that there was already cross FIR being Crime No. 237 of 2010 of the even date against the very complainant in respect of same incident. The authorities concerned should have weighed this aspect while passing the oder of externment. 5. The order of the externing authority as well as the appellate authority is silent to the four witnesses produced by the petitioner at the time of hearing. The learned counsel placed before the court the format of questionnaire put to the witnesses of the petitioner who however, in unequivocal terms in clause (6) have stated that the petitioner is not danger to the society. 6. The another feature of the matter is, that the petitioner claims to be whistle blower in the area as he has pointed several illegalities of 3 slumlords in the area by his communication dated 22.2.2010 and 2.3.2010. It gives room that those persons named have developed grudge against the petitioner. They are master minds to initiate action against the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner, does not fit to brand him as danger to the society. Appreciation letter is issued to petitioner by none other than police. Annoyance to individual by itself should not give rise to curtail liberty enshrined to the petitioner to remain in the area. The authorities have ample powers in Cr.P.C. to take care if the petitioner threatens or causes disturbance to the public peace in the region. Taking survey of all the facts, I find that the orders under challenge issued by the externing authority and confirmed by the appellate authority lack merit. The orders are set aside. Petition is allowed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)