Allowed

Sarfaraj Alam and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020CRLP/11257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a notice dated 01.07.2020 issued under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. by the City Magistrate, Jaunpur, as it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 111 Cr.P.C. by omitting essential details regarding the bond and security.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 01.07.2020 issued under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed.

Sarfaraj Alam and Another Vs State of U P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11257 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sarfaraj Alam And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Kant, learned AAG and Sri S.K. Pal, learned GA.

¶6

Sri Sahdeo Kumar Mishra, the City Magistrate, Jaunpur is called upon and is present before the Court today.

¶7

Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of the impugned notice dated 01.07.2020 under the provisions of section 110(g) Cr.P.C., issued by respondent no. 2 i.e., the City Magistrate, Jaunpur with a further direction to direct the respondents to not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.

¶8

Petitioner's contention is that as per the requirement of section 110(g), the Executive Magistrate, when receives information that there is, within his local jurisdiction, a person, who is covered by clauses (a) to (f) and is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at-large without security will be hazardous to the community, then such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered, to execute a bond, with surities, for his good behavior for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit. It is submitted that section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, puts obligation on the Magistrate that whenever he deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be enforced, and the numbers, character and class of securities (if any) required. It is submitted that present notice is short of these details and therefore, such notice issued in a mechanical manner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶9

We called the City Magistrate, Jaunpur to explain. Sri

¶10

Shahdev Kumar Mishra, City Magistrate, Jaunpur appears along with Sri Vinod Kant, learned AAG, where learned AAG admits that notice is short of legal requirements laid down in section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶11

In view of such fact and admission, impugned notice is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, hereby quashed. Petition is allowed . Parties to bear their own cost.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 Vikram/-S

Sarfaraj Alam and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfaraj Alam and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meera Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asif and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

K.N. Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Zaki and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saeed Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shalini Tripathi @ Deepika Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others