Dismissed

Gurvindar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2022A482/11371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a notice issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C. The court held that the notice was based on a police report and the magistrate had applied its mind, distinguishing precedents factually. The complainants were directed to file a reply within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Applicants directed to submit reply to the impugned notice within seven days.

Gurvindar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11371 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gurvindar Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Murari Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

Applicants have rushed to this Court at the stage of a notice issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C. against them on 02.04.2022 wherein 21.04.2022 was fixed by concerned Magistrate for their appearance and for filing reply. From perusal of aforesaid notice it appears that it has been issued on the basis of a report submitted by concerned Police Station.

¶6

Sri K.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants, submits that said notice is arbitrary, illegal and without following the due process of law so much as that it was an alleged incident between two neighbors, therefore, it would not fall under disturbance of public tranquility, as referred under Section 107 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16386 of 2020), decided on 11.06.2021 and a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Kanhaiya vs. State of U.P. and others (Application under Section 482 No. 17006 of 2020), decided on 01.12.2020, that before issuing a notice concerned Magistrate has to follow the due process as prescribed for the said purpose.

¶7

Learned AGA appearing for State, on instructions, submits that on the basis of a complaint filed by applicants, FIR has already been lodged against accused persons.

¶8

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material as well as the judgments cited by learned counsel for applicants.

¶9

In Kanhaiya (supra) the Court quashed the notice on the ground that it was issued without any prior report and was prepared on a printed proforma. However, from perusal of impugned notice in the present case, it cannot be said that Magistrate has not applied its mind as the Magistrate has taken note of report submitted by concerned Police Station as well as has satisfaction that case is made out to issue notice, therefore, on facts the judgment in Kanhaiya (supra), is not helpful to applicants.

¶10

In Shiv Kumar Verma (supra) the Division Bench has discussed the procedure ought to be followed by Magistrate to issue notice under Sections 107 and 111 Cr.P.C. In the said judgment Division Bench stressed that officials should follow the procedure in letter and spirit and for that certain Government Order was also issued wherein procedure was prescribed in terms of Section 107 Cr.P.C. which states that in case a Magistrate is satisfied on the basis of a report that it is a fit case to issue notice then Court of Magistrate will issue notice and sought reply and only thereafter may pass final order.

¶11

So far as present matter is concerned, the Magistrate on the basis of Police report has issued notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to applicants, therefore, it cannot be said that till the stage of issuing notice procedure was not complied with. Applicants, instead of submitting reply, have rushed to this Court in anticipation that Court of Magistrate is likely to pass adverse order against them. Anticipation cannot be considered to be a grievance or to be a circumstance to exercise inherent power of this Court.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for applicants placed reliance on a judgment passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Smt. Urmila Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr. MMO No.

¶13

372 of 2018), decided on 14.11.2018 that the proceedings under

¶14

Section 116(6) Cr.P.C. have to be completed within six months. However, the facts of present case are different, as the applicants themselves have not filed reply to the impugned notice, therefore, it cannot be permitted to them to say that the proceedings would have to be completed within six months. 9. In view of above, the application is dismissed. Applicants are directed to submit reply to impugned notice within seven days from today. In case reply is submitted, the Magistrate shall proceed and pass order in accordance with law. In case no reply is filed within aforesaid period, the Magistrate can still proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.10.2022 AK

¶16

(Sl. No. 10 out of 335 fresh cases)

¶17

Digitally signed by AWADESH KUMAR Date: 2022.10.17 18:12:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gurvindar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurvindar Singh and Another 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

Kalicharan Alias Baba Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amrish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Raj and Others Vs State of U.P.

Shahjad Khan Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Abhay Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lekhraj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another