Allahabad High Court
Bipin Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25915
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3626 of 2024
Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
(C.M.A. No. 1 of 2024)
1. This is an application seeking amendment in the memo and prayer clause of the application.
2. Cause shown in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the instant application is found to be satisfactory.
3. Application is allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to incorporate necessary amendment in the memo and prayer clause of the present case during the course of the day.
(Order on application)
1. Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
Present case has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with following main prayer:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash impugned notice dated 28.03.2024 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj, District Raebareli, U.P. Under Section 110 (g) readwith Section 111 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 177/2024 (State of U.P. Versus Bipin Kumar Yadav) relating to Police Station Bachchrawan, District Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh against the present applicant and to quash all the consequential proceedings as arising out of this instant case as in the interest of justice"
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned notice dated 28.03.2024 has been issued on printed proforma and in a mechanical manner and that there is no material available against the applicant for initiation of proceedings under Section 110 (g) Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
3. It is further submitted that not even a single case has been mentioned against the applicant in the notice though one case is mentioned in the report of the SHO and on the basis thereof, the impugned notice under Section 110 (g) Cr.P.C. has been issued.
4. It is further submitted that with regard to the printed proforma, this Court in catena of decisions has ruled that the issuance of notice on printed proforma is illegal and arbitrary & in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment in the cases of Shiva Nand Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1993 Vol 30 ACC page 146 followed in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2010 (Kamal Vs. State of U.P.), wherein this Court has set aside the notices being issued on a printed proforma.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 12.01.2021 passed in Case No. U/s 482/378/407 No. 2927 of 2020 (Jitendra Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others), judgment and order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 2902 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others).
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application and submitted that notice was sent to the applicant who is a desperate and dangerous person due to which there exists an atmosphere of terror in the area, and therefore the conditions prescribed under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. are fulfilled and there is no infirmity in the same.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that there is one criminal case against the applicant i.e. Case Crime No. 75 of 2024, which has been registered against the applicant under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and on the basis of challani report submitted by the S.H.O., a perusal of which only indicates that the applicant is considered to be a person so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large, without security, hazardous to the community for breach of peace in the society.
8. It is further observed that no incident has been reported against the applicant from which it could be inferred no such specific instances have been given that the applicant is of such desperate and dangerous nature so as to render his being at large, without security, hazardous to the community for breach of peace of the society. It is the duty of the Police to to have submitted certain factual details in the report and left it to the Magistrate who have considered the entire factual aspect of the matter by applying his mind and to record his satisfaction with regard to the applicant so as to enable him to proceed against the applicant under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. In this regard it is necessary to consider certain pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court.
9. In the case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of U.P., 1977 All Cri C 333 this Court observed:-
"There are a series of decisions in which it has been held that the provisions contained in Section 111 of the Code are mandatory and that the non-compliance thereof vitiated the entire proceedings."
10. In the case of Madhu Limaye v. S. D. M. Mongyr, 1971 AIR 2486, the Apex Court, in para 36 of its judgment observed:
"36. We have seen the provisions of Section 107. That section says that action is to be taken in the manner here-in-after provided and this clearly indicate that it is not open to a Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behooves us, therefore, to emphasise the safeguards built into the procedure because from there will arise the consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public order or in the interest of the general public."
11. In this very case the Apex Court went on to observe in para 37
"37. Since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity at his hands. Although the section speaks of the `substance of the information' it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information bodily but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word 'substance' means the essence of the most important parts of the information."
12. The necessary ingredients for invoking provisions under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. is that the quality of the information received should be of such a nature that from mere perusal of the same it can be determined that the person concerned is desperate and dangerous so as to render his being at large without security, hazardous to the community. It is a pre-condition with regard to the material before the police which should be of such quality as stated in Section 110(g) of Cr.P.C. so as to lead the Magistrate to invoke the powers under the said section.
13. The notice having been issued on printed performa clearly indicates the non-application of mind by the Magistrate while issuing the notice U/S 110(g) Cr.P.C. Further even as per the police report clearly indicates absence of any relevant cogent material to invoke power U/S 110 (g) Cr.P.C.
14. As, analyzed hereinabove, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the material necessary for invocation of jurisdiction under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. is clearly lacking and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed.
15. In light of the above, notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Sections 110(g) and 111 Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside and the notices are discharged. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
Order Date :- 5.5.2025/Ashish
