Mohit Saxena And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9647 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13714 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Mohit Saxena And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nishant Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants questioning the Notice/Order U/S 111 Cr.P.C. dated 02.06.2021 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Ghaziabad in Case No.2680 of 2021, under Sections 107/116 of Cr.P.C., Police Station-Masoori, District-Ghaziabad on the ground that it is issued on a cyclostyled proforma and does not fulfill the requirements of Section 111 of Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, the Executive Magistrate has to record his satisfaction as to the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 111 Cr.P.C. before any order is made under Section 111 Cr.P.C.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Ranjeet Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Anothers; (2002) 45 ACC 627 as well as in case of Megh Nath Gupta and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another; (2008) 62 ACC 826, so also in case of Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports vs Roshan Lal Agarwal and Others; (2003) 46 ACC 686.

4. In case of Ranjeet Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and another (supra), it has been held that Section 111 Cr.P.C. provides that an order under it, must be in writing and it should contain the following elements:-

"(i) substance of the information received under Section 107-110-Cr.P.C. (as the case may be);

(ii) that upon consideration of such information, the Magistrate has formed the opinion that there is likelihood of the breach of peace;

(iii) that it is necessary to proceed under relevant Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C. as the case may be;

(iv) that amount of the bond to be executed;

(v) the term for which the bond is to remain in force; and

(vi) the character and class of sureties required."

5. A perusal of the notice dated 02.06.2021 reveals that it has been filled in a printed proforma. In case of Ranjeet Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra), proceedings pending against the applicant were declared to be nullity and notice were set aside and proceedings were quashed on the ground that in that case, the Magistrate had not set forth in the order, the substance of information, received by him, as required by Section 111 Cr.P.C. It is held that the object of setting forth in the order, the substance of information, received by the Magistrate, is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. When examined on this touchstone, it is evident that the impugned notice is devoid of the consideration of such information, as was received by the Magistrate asking the petitioner to show cause and even there is no details of the allegations against him. Therefore, even in this case, the notice appears to be defective and invalid and therefore, on the basis of a defective and invalid notice, proceedings cannot be sustained. Therefore, notice is quashed, proceedings are set aside, however, it shall be open for the learned Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if he deems necessary and if the cause of action still subsist.

6. In above terms, Application is allowed/disposed off.

Order Date :- 5.8.2021

Ashutosh