Court allowed quashing application. Held that notice under Section 110/111 Cr.P.C was defective and invalid due to vague and ambiguous substance of information. Proceedings initiated on this notice were quashed as void ab initio.
Impugned notice under Section 110/111 Cr.P.C set aside; proceedings initiated thereupon quashed.
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. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4767 of 2021
Applicant :- Anas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.56 of 2020 (State Vs. Anas), under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Azamgarh.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the Incharge Inspector of Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh had submitted a Challani Report under Section 110(G) of Cr.P.C. on 22.11.2020 against applicant Anas son of Malla stating therein that applicant is an accused in Case Crime No.71 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 & 308 I.P.C. It is also mentioned in the Challani report that applicant is a habitual criminal and there is possibility of breach of peace in the locality and as such the applicant be summoned and he may be directed to furnish personal bond and surety. On the basis of Challani report dated 22.11.2020 learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh issued notice under Section 110/111 Cr.P.C. to applicant on 3.12.2020 directing the applicant to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the same amount for good behaviour for the period of one year.
Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that notice dated 3.12.2020 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh neither contains full particulars of criminal cases pending against applicant nor full substance of police report on which basis aforesaid notice was issued and as such the notice impugned is illegal and is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2008 (63) ACC 374 (Baleshwar Vs. State of U.P. and others).
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 and is habitual to commit crimes mentioned in Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of Indian Penal Code. The notice purporting to be under 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 applicant before him are a nullity being without jurisdiction.
For the reason stated above, this application is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside and the proceedings initiated on the basis of these 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 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Kpy
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice u/s 110 Cr.P.C is valid and legally sound when it fails to set forth full particulars of pending cases and the full substance of the police report.
Whether the impugned notice is vague and ambiguous, thus defeating the object of Section 111 Cr.P.C.
Whether proceedings initiated on the basis of a void notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C are without jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baleshwar Vs. State of U.P. and others.Referred¶8
2008 (63) ACC 374 (Baleshwar Vs. State of U.P. and others.)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Anas
State of U.P.
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
