Allahabad High Court
Sharad Kumar Verma And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 25 May, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39988
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4814 of 2024
Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Verma And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Kanaujea
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application has been filed challenging the impugned notices under Section 111/112 Cr.P.C. issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilgram, Hardoi in Case No.421 of 2023 dated 22.4.2024 and 23.4.2024.
From perusal of the record it appears that the impugned notice dated 22.4.2024 issued under Section 111/112 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned notice dated 23.4.2024 issued under Section 111/112 Cr.P.C. against the applicants. Perusal of the notices show that both are verbatim same except the name of the applicants and the date of the approval of the concerned Circle Officer. The notices appear to have been issued on the basis of the report of Station In-charge District Hardoi dated 15.4.2024 which have been subsequently moved by the concerned Circle Officer.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned notices issued by the concerned Magistrate is patently illegal. The 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 submitted that impugned notice does not fulfill the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran and Others Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2008 (63) ACC 374. Relevant paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the judgement are extracted below:-
"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 A.G.A. has opposed the application, however, does not dispute the settled proposition of law (supra).
This Court, after perusing the impugned notices, finds that the impugned notices contain bare recital that the applicant is criminal type person and it is not appropriate to set him free in the public interest. Both the impugned notices do not contain full substance of information given by concerned Police Officer as well as both the notices are verbatim same except the name and date of the approval by the concerned Circle Officer. It appears that without application of mind the notices have been issued. The notices issued also cannot be sustained in view of the judgement of Baleshwar (supra), consequently, the present application is allowed. The impugned notices dated dated 22.4.2024 and 23.4.2024 are hereby quashed. Learned Magistrate concerned shall issue a fresh notice as per law.
Order Date :- 25.5.2024
Madhu
