Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Yadav And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 22 May, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38589
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4649 of 2024
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav And 10 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for respondent State.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order/notice dated 23.2.2024 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, District Ayodhya and also the entire proceedings of Case against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order/notice dated 23.2.2024 has been issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, District Ayodhya under Section 111 Cr.P.C. initiating proceedings and requiring for filing of sureties and personal bond of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that the applicants may breach peace during Lok Sabha General Elections. It is submitted that on political pressure of local leader the impugned notice has been issued. The applicants have not been involved in any criminal case which contains any valid reason that the applicant may breach peace. A false report dated 18.2.2024 has been submitted under Section 107/116 Cr.P,.C. against the applicants by the local police just to harass the applicants.
In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgement of 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."
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.
Perused the record.
A perusal of the impugned notice shows that it has been issued on a printed proforma and gaps have been filled up which shows total non-application of mind. Record further shows that it does not contain full particulars or full substance of the information given by the concerned police officer rather vague and general recital that there is apprehension of breach of peace. The concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously while issuing the impugned notice dated 23.2.2024, hence it is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The impugned notice dated 23.2.2024 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, District Ayodhya is hereby quashed. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, 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.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Madhu
