The writ petition challenging a notice under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. and a dismissed revision is dismissed. The court found no illegality or jurisdictional error as the lower courts recorded concurrent findings of fact and their view was possible.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10376 of 2004 Petitioner :- Hamid Husain And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nasiruzzaman Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of petitioner even in the revised list/call. The writ petition is being decided on merit in absence of learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This writ petition has been preferred against notice dated 18.11.2004 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhogaon in Case No. 944 of 2004, whereby notice under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioners and order dated 30.11.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2004 (Hamid Husain and 20 others Vs. State of U.P.) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Mainpuri, whereby revision was dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable.
The petition has been filed on the grounds that impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, perverse and against the evidence available on record.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders impugned, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of record, it appears that notice dated 18.11.2004 was issued against the petitioners under Section 111 Cr.P.C. requiring them to furnish a security of Rs.25,000/- each for 12 months to maintain peace; no final order was passed; both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and the view taken by both courts below is possible view.
In such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018/NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the notice under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. and the dismissed revision.
Whether there is any illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Hamid Husain And Others
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
