Allowed

Satya Prakash Singh @ Rinku Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2020A482/13477/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. The court held that the impugned notice was defective for failing to disclose the substance of information received, rendering it void and the subsequent proceedings a nullity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C was set aside and pending proceedings were quashed.

Satya Prakash Singh @ Rinku Singh Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13477 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh @ Rinku Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Keshri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to quash/stay the order/notice dated 17.3.2020 passed by Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Chandauli and also to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 40/2020 (State v. Satya Prakash Singh @ Rinku Singh) under section 110(G) Cr.P.C. pending before the court of S.D.M. Sadar, Chandauli.

¶7

A plain reading of this Section would show that the order under Section 110 Cr.P.C must be followed by order under Section 111 Cr.P.C and should be in writing and it should contain the following elements:

¶8

(1) Substance of the information received under Section 107-110 Cr.P.C. (as the case may be);

¶9

(2) that upon consideration of such information, the Magistrate has formed the opinion that there is likelihood of breach of peace;

¶10

(3) that it is necessary to proceed under relevant Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C as the case may be;

¶11

(4) that amount of the bond to be executed;

¶12

(5) the term for which the bond is to remain in force; and

¶13

(6) the character and class of sureties required.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted before the Court that the impugned notice suffers form illegality inasmuch as it is not only vague but the Magistrate has not set forth in the order the substance of the information received by him under Section 110(g) as required by Section 111 Cr.P.C. Law in this regard has been settled in Gopalanchari Vs. State of Karela AIR 1981 SC 674.

¶15

It is well settled that the objectives of setting forth in the order the substance of the information received by the 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 111 Cr.P.C is defeated. A perusal of the instant notice leaves no room of doubt that substance of the information as set forth therein is wholly incomplete, vague and ambiguous. It simply recites that the Magistrate has been informed that the applicants are habitual in causing harassment to general public perhaps on account of theft, dacoity, etc. This in my considered opinion hardly fulfill the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. The notice purporting to be under

¶16

Section 110 Cr.P.C is thus wholly defective and invalid. As such the Magistrate does not have any jurisdiction to proceed on the basis of this void notice and proceedings pending against the applicants before him are a nullity being without jurisdiction.

¶17

For the reason stated above, this application is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside and the proceedings initiated on the basis of these null and void notices are quashed as being without jurisdiction. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open for the Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if he deems necessary. Application allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.9.2020 ssm

¶19

Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh Date: 2020.09.16 17:06:19 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satya Prakash Singh @ Rinku Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Singh @ Rinku Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Avnish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Zahid Vs State of U.P.

Sagarpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nitin Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.