Allahabad High Court
Anand Verma And 14 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 10 May, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36170
Court No. - 29
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4318 of 2024
Applicant :- Anand Verma And 14 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Shri Shashank Verma, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order and show cause notice dated 06.04.2024 passed by the opposite party No.2, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rudauli, Police Station Patranga District Ayodhya under Section 111 Cr.P.C in Case No. 56 of 2024 (State of U.P. Versus Rajneesh Verma) under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C.
3. Record shows that Police of Police Station Patranga, District Ayodhya submitted a challan report dated 22.03.2024 against 44 persons including the present applicant, whereby he has been challaned under sections 111 Cr.P.C. It is alleged in aforesaid report that there is possibility of breach of peace. In order to prevent same, aforesaid person has been callaned under section 111 Cr.P.C. In the interest of Justice, requisite amount of personal bond and surety bond be obtained from above named persons.
4. After aforesaid report was forwarded by S.H.O. Police Station Patranga, District Ayodhya to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rudauli District Ayodhya/ opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 issued notice dated 06.04.2024 under sections 111 Cr.P.C asking applicant to furnish personal bond and heavy sureties.
5. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid notice dated 06.04.2024, applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that notice dated 06.04.2024, issued by opposite party No.2 is patently illegal. Same does not contain full particulars nor the full substance of Police Report, on the basis of which aforesaid notice has been issued. It is thus urged that impugned notice does not fulfill the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. In support of above, reliance is placed upon Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran and Others Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (63) ACC 374, wherein a learned Single Judge has observed as follows in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8:
"6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by parties Counsel and after going the impugned notice, I find force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the impugned notice is wholly illegal and void. Annexure 1 is the copy of the impugned notice, which was issued by SDM Mawana (Meerut) to the applicants, whereby they were called upon to appear on 10.12.2004 and show cause as to why they be not ordered to execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- and furnish two sureties each in the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year. In this notice it is only mentioned by the SDM concerned that he is satisfied with the report of S.O. of P.S. Mawana that due to old litigation, there is enmity between the parties, due to which there is likelihood of the breach of peace. It is not mentioned in this notice that what type of litigation is going on between the parties and in which Court the said litigation is pending. Number of the case and other details of the said litigation have also not been mentioned in the impugned notice. As such the impugned notice issued by the learned SDM Mawana is vague and it does not fulfil the requirements of Section 111, Cr.P.C. This type of notice has been held to be illegal by this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. (supra).
7. Making an order under Section 111 of the Code is not an idle formality. It should be clear on the face of the order under Section 111, Cr.P.C. that the order has been passed after application of judicial mind. If no substance of information is given in the order under Section 111, the person against whom the order has been made will remain in confusion. Section 114 of the Code provides that the summons or warrants shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 111. This salutary provision has been enshrined in the Code to give notice of the facts and the allegations which are to be met by the person against whom the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. are drawn.
8. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings under Section 107/116 of the Code some times cause irreparable loss and unnecessary harassment to the public, who run to the Court at the costs of their own vocations of life. Unless it is absolutely necessary, proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr.P.C. should not be resorted to. Experience tells that proceedings like the one under Section 107/116 of the Code are conducted in a most lethargic and lackadaisical manner by the learned Executive Magistrate causing harassment to public beyond measure."
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed further reliance upon judgments of this Court reported in 2004 (5) ACC 734 Aurangzeb and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2002 (45) ACC 627 Ranjeet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and 2008 (61) ACC 540 Har Charan Vs. State of U.P. and another in support of his contention.
8. In view of aforesaid, this Court has examined the impugned notice dated 06.04.2024, issued by opposite party No.2 under sections 111 Cr.P.C. The Court finds that 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 dated 06.04.2024. The notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. does not contain the substance of allegation which has been made against the applicant and has been issued in a routine manner on a printed format.
9. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 06.04.2024, issued by opposite party no.2 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed.
10. Consequently, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Impugned notice dated 06.04.2024 is quashed. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rudauli District Ayodhya shall issue a fresh notice after undertaking requisite exercise in the light of observations made herein above and in accordance with law, if deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Nadeem
