MP HC Quashes Externment Of Man With 18 Registered Cases, As Magistrate Failed To Record That Fear Kept Witnesses From Testifying Against Him

The District Magistrate, Narmadapuram, passed an externment order against the petitioner on 23 March 2026 under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

The Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 13 October 2026.

The record showed 18 cases against the petitioner, approximately 12 under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, and a police proposal based on his criminal history.

Section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 requires the District Magistrate to form an opinion that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the person because of apprehension regarding the safety of their person or property.

The Division Bench in Ashok Kumar Patel v. State of M.P., 2009(4) MPLJ 434, held that this opinion must be supported by material and cannot be replaced by a bare assertion that the person’s criminal history has created fear or terror; merely repeating the statutory language is insufficient.

The Court applied this requirement as a necessary condition for an externment order under Section 5(b).

Although the record reflected numerous cases against the petitioner and a police proposal based on his criminal history, the District Magistrate’s order did not record an opinion that witnesses were unwilling to testify against him because of fear for their safety or property.

Applying Ashok Kumar Patel, the Court held that criminal history alone did not satisfy Section 5(b)’s requirement; the requisite opinion had to be formed and recorded.

The statutory condition was therefore unmet, making both challenged orders unsustainable.

It left the respondents at liberty to initiate fresh externment proceedings if considered necessary in the public interest, provided they comply with the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.