Allahabad High Court
Madan Pal Tomar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159375
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19955 of 2023
Applicant :- Madan Pal Tomar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Prathamesh Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. dated 04.05.2023 issued by Executive Magistrate-3, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No. 1 has filed a complaint dated 07.02.2023 against the opposite party No. 3 alleging therein that in front of his house, opposite party No. 3 has installed a CCTV Camera, which is breach of his privacy. He next submitted that on the complaint made by the applicant No. 1, notices were issued vide impugned order 04.05.2023 against the applicants as well as opposite party No. 3 under Section 111 Cr.P.C. for producing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount. He firmly submitted that first of all applicant No. 1 has himself filed the complaint dated 07.02.2023, therefore, order dated 04.05.2023 may not have been passed against him and further, the said order has been passed on the printed proforma and suffers from non application of mind, therefore, the same is bad and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in passed in Application U/s 482 No.- 6429 of 2022: Sandeep And Others Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko, decided on 19.09.2022.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants, but could not dispute the fact that order dated 04.05.2023 has been passed without assigning any reason.
5. I have considered submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment relied upon.
6. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 04.05.2023, it is apparently clear that it has been passed without assigning any reason and non application of mind.
7. The very same issue was before this Court in the matter of Sandeep And Others(Supra). Rrelevant paragraph of the said judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:
"There cannot be any other proposition than the fact that passing of an order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate concerned could not be deemed merely a formality more so in the background of the fact that personal liberty of some persons may is at stake. The order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. must reflect the exercise of judicial mind by the Magistrate concerned and at-least the substance of the report must be mentioned in the order itself along with subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate as to why he is deeming it necessary to ask the person(s) to file personal bond with surety bond in order to keep peace and tranquility in the area.
It is also to be understood that an order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. also diminishes and lower down the reputation of a respected person who is not involved in any incident whereby the peace of the locality may be disturbed. Thus a careful exercise is required by the Magistrate concerned while acting under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and the same could not be done in cursory way.
This court does not deem it necessary to cite many case laws passed not only by this Court but also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring the Magistrate to support their findings by giving cogent reasons. The order passed without assigning any reason is a body without soul. Every person against whom the some order has been passed is having a right to be informed as to what had persuaded the authority to pass the impugned order so that he can move an appropriate explanation before the same authority or challenge the same at an higher forum."
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparently clear that order dated 04.05.2023 has been pased on printed proforma without assigning any reason and non application of mind directing the applicants as well as opposite party No. 3 for producing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, but no reasons have been assigned for passing such order. It clearly shows that order dated 04.05.2023 has been passed without application of mind.
9. Accordingly the instant application is allowed at the stage on admission and the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the Executive Magistrate-3, Gautam Buddh Nagar is hereby quashed.
10. However, quashing of the order dated 04.05.2023 shall not preclude the Executive Magistrate concerned to issue a fresh notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C., strictly in accordance with law.
11. A copy of this order be immediately sent to Executive Magistrate-3, Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023/ADY
