Ajay Singh @ Ajay Yadav Samrat vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 8366 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10700 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ajay Singh @ Ajay Yadav Samrat
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Rai,Jitendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, First, Prayagraj initiated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. under Section 107/116 IPC, P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 29th March, 2022 has been passed without following the mandate of provision of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. He added that, in fact, the present applicant is student and he was not involved in any kind of activity which can disturb the peace and tranquility of the society. He also added that by issuing notice, a personal bond of Rs.50 thousand and two sureties has also been asked to furnish by the applicant.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid notice, the instant application has been filed wherein the contention has been raised that Section 111 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that while issuing the show cause it is necessary to set forth the substance of the information received, executed and the term for which, it will remain in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.

During the course of argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Raju Maurya vs State of U.P. and other reported in MANU/UP/1614/2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while issuing the show cause notice, the authority did not fallow the provision of Section 111 of Cr.P.c. and as such the notice dated 29.03.2022 is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer aforesaid and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned notice as there is every possibility of breach of peace and has rightly issued the notice to the applicant.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the impugned notice contains a bare recital that there is apprehension of commission of cognizable offence. Impugned notice does not contain full substance of information given by concerned police officer. Consequently concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously while issuing the impugned notice.

In view of above, the impugned notice dated 29.03.2022 issued by the Additional City Magistrate, First, Prayagraj is not sustainable and as such the same is liable to be quashed.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. Impugned notice dated 29.03.2022 is hereby quashed. Additional City Magistrate, First, Prayagraj shall issue a fresh notice after undertaking requisite exercise, in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 28.7.2022

A.Kr.