Allahabad High Court
Gyanveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9815 of 2023
Applicant :- Gyanveer Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Babboo Ram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Babboo Ram, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA.
This 482 application has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the impugned notice dated 28-02-2022 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hapur in relation to Case No. 380 of 2023 under Sections 107/111/116/151 Cr.P.C. (State of U.P. Vs. Gyanveer Singh), P.S. Babugarh, District Hapur.
Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hapur dated 28-02-2022 solely on the ground that there is no application of mind by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hapur. The said notice is being passed on the basis of the cyclostyled proforma and this practice has been deprecated by this Court time and again.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Nafisul Hasan Naqvi Vs. State of U.P. & Others in Application No. 23696 of 2011 decided on 05-08-2011. The relevant paragraph no.5 is quoted hereunder:-
" Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions it is evident that notice under challenge on the ground that the notice suffers from illegality, vagueness of the substance of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete vague and ambiguous. Notice is wholly defective and invalid. The Additional City Magistrate-IInd, Aligarh has no jurisdiction to proceed on the basis of this void notice and proceedings pending against the applicant are a nullity without jurisdiction and as the applicant has challenged the validity of the impugned notice on the ground that it does not fulfill the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 111 Cr. P. C. and therefore, the notice in question is null and void and the proceedings before the Additional City Magistrate-IInd, Aligarh are a nullity. It is well settled that the objective of setting forth in the order, the substance of information received by the Additional City Magistrate-IInd, Aligarh is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. If the substance of the information set forth in the notice is vague and ambiguous, the very object of Section 110 Cr. P. C. is defeated."
He has further placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Surjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11122 of 2011 decided on 21-06-2011. The relevant paragraph no.6 is quoted hereunder:-
"Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions it is evident that notice under challenge on the ground that the notice suffers from illegality, vagueness of the substance of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete vague and ambiguous. Notice is wholly defective and invalid. The D. M. has no jurisdiction to proceed on the basis of this void notice and proceedings pending against the petitioner are a nullity without jurisdiction and as the petitioner have challenged the validity of the impugned notice on the ground that it does not fulfil the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. and therefore, the notice in question is null and void and the proceedings before the D. M. are a nullity. It is well settled that the objective of setting forth in the order, the substance of information received by the D. M. is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. If the substance of the information set forth in the notice is vague and ambiguous, the very object of Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. is defeated. Unfortunately due to lack of clear perception of law the Sessions Judge has also put his seal of approval in the invalid order under Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. The lack of vigil on the part of the revisional court is regrettable."
He has lastly placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Ranjeet Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1279 of 2002 decided on 02-08-2002. The relevant paragraph nos.3 and 4 are quoted hereunder:-
"3. A plain reading of this section would show that the order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. must be in writing and it should contain in the following elements"
(i) substance of the information received under Section 107/110 Cr.P.c. (as the case may be):
(2) that upon consideration of such information, the Magistrate has formed the opinion that there is likelihood of the breach of peace;
(3) that it is necessary to proceed under relevant Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C. as the case may be;
(4) that amount of the bond to be executed;
(5) the term for which the bond is to remain in force; and
(6) the character and class of sureties required.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted before the Court that the impugned notice suffers from illegality inasmuch as it is not only vague but the Magistrate has not setforth in the order the substance of the information received by him as required by Section 111 Cr.P.C."
Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is evident that the impugned notice under challenge suffers from illegality, vagueness of the substance of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete vague and ambiguous. I have perused the aforesaid judgments and I have got no hesitation in setting aside the order impugned dated 28-02-2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hapur. However, the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration in the light of the aforesaid judgment. If the Court finds a proper reason then he may re-visit the entire matter once again and apply his judicial mind and may pass a fresh order.
With the aforesaid observations, the 482 application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.4.2023
pks
