Allowed

Shariq Ali Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019A482/8451/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a notice under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. issued by the Upper City Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The Court held the notice was defective, void, and incomplete because it was prepared on a cyclostyled proforma with blanks filled in by ink, failing to meet mandatory requirements and depriving the court of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The notice u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. issued by the Upper City Magistrate, Ghaziabad is quashed and the application is allowed.

Shariq Ali Khan and 2 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8451 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shariq Ali Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

The facts of the case in brief are that a notice dated 07.02.2019, under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. has been issued by the Upper City Magistrate, Ghaziabad asking the applicants to show cause why they may not be required to furnish personal bonds of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of one year.

¶7

The applicants have now approached this Court praying that the notice U/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. issued by the Upper City Magistrate, Ghaziabad be quashed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has invited my attention to the order passed by the Upper City Magistrate under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the above order is bad in law and as such the Magistrate could not assume jurisdiction to proceed under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the order is on a cyclostyled proforma with certain blanks, which have been filled in with pen and ink by someone and simply initiated by the Magistrate.

¶9

It is further submitted that the Upper City Magistrate has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on the basis of this void notice and he has placed reliance upon the case of Ranjeet Kumar and others Versus State of U. P. and others reported in 2002 (45) ACC 627.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is evident that notice under challenge on the ground that the notice suffers from illegality, vagueness of the substance of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete vague and ambiguous. Notice is wholly defective and invalid. The Upper City Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed on the basis of this void notice and proceedings pending against the applicants are a nullity without jurisdiction and as the applicants have challenged the validity of the impugned notice on the ground

¶11

that it does not fulfil the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. and therefore, the notice in question is null and void and the proceedings before the Upper City Magistrate are a nullity. It is well settled that the objective of setting forth in the order, the substance of information received by the Upper City Magistrate is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. If the substance of the information set forth in the notice is vague and ambiguous, the very object of Section 110 Cr. P. C. is defeated.

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, the aforesaid notice u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C issued by the Upper City Magistrate, Ghaziabad is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.

¶13

The application is allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 SKD

Shariq Ali Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shariq Ali Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwan Ullah I and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niyajuddeen Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bhagelu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ratiram and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Mohammad Shanu Vs State of Up

Ravi and Another Vs State of Up and Another