Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging an externment order issued under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, “KAAPA”, for short.
3. The substance of the allegation against the petitioner is that she is covered by different first information reports and final reports for occurrences which are recorded as Crime Nos.272/2013, 45/2014, 115/2014 and 643/2014 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, three of which include certain allegations making reference to the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. That apart, we see from the records that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “Code”, for short, has been initiated against the petitioner as Crime No.273/2014 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station.
4. Hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor, we see that the occurrence, which has led to registration of Crime No.272 of 2013, is described as spreading over a period of 3 to 4 years. That includes allegation of demand of amounts which were due under a money transaction; the allegation as to threat of physical assault, etc. But, the span of those transactions, including the allegation as to the threat of physical assault, is spread out in such a manner that it does not by itself inspire confidence at this point of time to act on the final report following investigation, since that is a matter yet to come for trial and the proceedings of registration of the FIR itself was generated on a court referring a private complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code. Be that as it may, we have looked into the allegations in Crime No.115/2014. That relates to occurrence, which are away from the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, and about a threat held out on account of the refusal of the complainant to lodge proceedings against the jurisdictional police. Taking into consideration, the substance of the four criminal cases noted above, which relate to registration of offences punishable under different penal provisions, we see that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Code has been made. If that were so, those proceedings should have been led to its logical end requiring the writ petitioner to execute bond and to maintain good behaviour. Such procedure was not adopted. That position notwithstanding, it also has not been recorded in the impugned order of restriction that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code, which has already been invoked, is insufficient to ensure good behaviour from the petitioner. More over, there is also nothing to show that the authority, which issued Ext.P1 order, had adverted to or considered any of the materials in relation to Section 107 proceedings. With this, we have taken note of the fact that the petitioner, a woman, has been kept out of her home district for nearly four months from now. We see no ground to continue the externment order.
For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing anything finally on the merits touching the contents of the different criminal cases, the externment order is ordered to stand discharged from today and the petitioner is directed to report to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor Police Station on every Thursday at 11 a.m., till the term of Ext.P1 expires. We leave open the challenge of the petitioner against inclusion in the rowdy list, to be raised in appropriate proceedings.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg