Allowed

Vijay Bahadur v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2020A482/9522/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. issued on a typed cyclostyled format that lacked the substance of the information against the applicant, citing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in case no. 620 of 2010, including the notice dated 19.01.2020, were quashed. The Magistrate is directed to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Vijay Bahadur Vs State of Up and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9522 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghazala Bano Quadri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

By means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has challenged the impugned order/notice dated 19.01.2020, under section 111 Cr.P.C. issued by the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that despite of repeated deprecation again given the notice typed format in cyclo styled manner. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court regarding one reported judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2010 Cr.LJ 2267 . Paragraphs nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶8

"[16]. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the impugned notice under section 111, Cr.P.C. has been issued on a typed format in a cyclo styled manner and in the said typed format only the name, date and police station has been filled in the gap's and also the Pargana Magistrate did not set forth the substance of the information received by him in the impugned notice.

¶9

[17]. In the case of Madhu Limaye, AIR 1971 SC 2486 (supra) it was held by Hon'ble the Apex court that the person proceeded against show cause notice must be informed of the allegations made against him, by giving him the substance of the information so that he may meet such allegations.

¶10

[18]. The preliminary order contemplated under Section 111, Cr.P.C. is a judicial order and has to be prepared and drawn up cautiously and carefully in compliance with the provisions of Section 111, Cr.P.C. and the order must contain reasons of the Magistrate satisfaction. The substance of the information is the matter upon which he has to show cause. If substance of information is not given in the order under Section 111, Cr.P.C. the person against whom the order has been made will remain in confusion. The extent of information which must be set forth depends in each case upon the circumstances of that case. The basic object of preliminary order being to give the person proceeded against an opportunity to meet the allegation made against him as well as nature of the order proposed."

¶11

Taking the guidance of the aforesaid judgment and law propounded in various judgments of the Hon'ble Court, this application deserves to be allowed and the application under section 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly allowed. The entire proceedings in case no. 620 of 2010 (State Vs. Vijay Bahadur, under sections 110 and 111 IPC including the notice dated 19.01.2020 issued by the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Allahabad are hereby quashed and, if so, learned Magistrate may decide and initiate the fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Court.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.8.2020 Vikram

Vijay Bahadur v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur v. State of Up and Another

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

Sonu Singh Vs State of Up and Anr.

Abhilash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Hashim and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brijesh Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharampal and Anr. Vs State of Up and Another

Shyam Sundar Vs State of Up and Another