Allahabad High Court
Rahul Gupta vs State Of Up 5 Others on 15 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87829
Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7030 of 2024
Applicant :- Rahul Gupta
Opposite Party :- State Of Up 5 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the chalani report and notice dated 29.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1184 of 2024, Computerized Case No. T202413740301184 (State v. Rahul Gupta), under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal, District Sambhal.
3. Record shows that Sup-inspector of Kotwali Sambhal, District Sambhal submitted a challani report dated 29.01.2024 against the applicant, whereby he has been challaned under sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. It is alleged in the aforesaid report that there exists a dispute between the applicant and his wife. As a consequence, there is apprehension of breach of peace.
4. After aforesaid report was forwarded by Police Officer, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal issued a notice dated 29.01.2024 under Section 111 Cr.P.C asking applicant to furnish personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and surety of the same amount.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated 29.01.2024, the applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that the notice dated 29.01.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal is patently illegal. The amount of surety directed to be furnished is unreasonable. Further, the impugned notice does not fulfill the requirements of Section 111 Cr.P.C. In support of above, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran and Others Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2008 (63) ACC 374, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court 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. Thus, the Court finds that impugned notice contains a bare recital that there is apprehension of breach of peace between the applicant and his wife leading to tension between the parties. Impugned notice does not contain full substance of information given by concerned Police Officer. Consequently, concerned Authority has not acted judiciously while issuing the impugned notice dated 29.01.2024.
8. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 29.01.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal cannot be sustained. The same is liable to be quashed.
9. Consequently, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Impugned notice dated 29.01.2024 is quashed. The competent authority may pass fresh necessary orders, if required, under the appropriate provision of law.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
SKT/-
