Allahabad High Court
Mastendra Singh And 2 Otehrs vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 October, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161327
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19866 of 2024
Applicant :- Mastendra Singh And 2 Otehrs
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Bhadauria
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Puneet Bhadauria, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. representing opposite parties 1, 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the notice dated 29.01.2024 under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C., issued by opposite party-2, Sub District Magistrate, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah in Case No. 755 of 2024 (State Vs. Mastendra Singh and Others), Police Station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah (Annexure-1 to the affidavit).
4. Record shows that Station Officer of Police Station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah, submitted a chalan report dated 02.12.2023 under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. that on account of a land dispute, there is eminent apprehension regarding breach of peace.
5. On the basis of aforesaid police report, opposite party-2, Deputy District Magistrate, P.S. Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah issued the notice dated 29.01.2024 under section 107/111 Cr.P.C directing the applicants to show cause as to why they be not directed to submit a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each for ensuring good behaviour and conduct.
6. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated 29.01.2024, applicants have now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for applicants contends that the impugned notice dated 29.01.2024, issued by opposite party-2, Deputy District Magistrate, P.S. Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah, 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. No personal satisfaction has been recorded by the opposite party-2, Sub District Magistrate, P.S. Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah either. It is thus urged that impugned notice does not fulfill the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. 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., 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."
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that since sufficient material exists on record necessitating the issuance of notice under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
9. In view of above, this Court has itself examined the impugned notice dated 29.01.2024, issued by opposite party-2, Deputy District Magistrate, P.S. Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. Upon examination, this Court finds that the impugned notice contains a bare recital that there is an apprehension of breach of peace. The same does not contain full substance of information given by concerned Police Officer nor does it show the personal satisfaction of opposite party-2 necessitating an order under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. The same contains a bald conclusion. Consequently, concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously while issuing the impugned notice dated 29.01.2024.
10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 29.01.2024, issued by opposite party-2, Sub District Magistrate, P.S. Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah, cannot be sustained.The same is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
11. As a result, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
12. It is, accordingly, allowed.
13. The impugned notice dated 29.01.2024 issued by opposite party-2, Sub District Magistrate, P.S. Jaswantnagar, District-Etawah (Annexure-1 to the affidavit) is, hereby, quashed.
Order Date :- 1.10.2024
HSM
