Allowed

Vakil Quraishi v. State of U.P.and 6 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023A482/23277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under s. 482 Cr.P.C. challenged a notice dated 04.02.2023 under s. 111 Cr.P.C. issued by the City Magistrate, Mathura, calling the applicant to furnish a personal bond and sureties. The court held the notice was patently illegal and void as it contained only a bare recital of apprehension without the full substance of the police report, failing to fulfill s. 111 Cr.P.C. requiremen

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 04.02.2023 is quashed. The City Magistrate, Mathura is directed to issue a fresh notice after undertaking the requisite judicial exercise.

Vakil Quraishi Vs State of U.P.and 6 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134494

¶2

Court No. - 91

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23277 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vakil Quraishi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging notice dated 04.02.2023, issued by City Magistrate, Mathura, under section 111 Cr.P.C in Case No. 101 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Vakil Quraishi) under sections 107/116 of Cr.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District- Mathura.

¶8

Record shows that Police of Police Station, Kotwali, Mathura, submitted a chalan report dated 31.01.2023 against the applicantVakil Quraishi, whereby they have been challaned under sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. It is alleged in aforesaid report that Case Crime No.0066 of 2023 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC have been registered on account of which their is tension between parties. Allegations and counter allegations are being made by either side. There is every possibility of breach of peace. In order to prevent same, aforesaid persons have been callaned under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. In the interest of Justice, requisite amount of personal bond and surety bond be obtained from above named persons.

¶9

After aforesaid report was forwarded by S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura, City Magistrate, Mathura issued notices dated 04.02.2023 under section 111 Cr.P.C asking applicant to furnish personal bond of Rs.1 lac each and two sureties of the same amount.

¶10

Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid notice dated 04.02.2023, applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant contends that the notice dated 04.02.2023, issued by City Magistrate, Mathura, is patently illegal.

¶12

Same does not contain full particulars nor the full substance of Police Report, on the basis of which aforesaid notice has been issued. It is thus urged that impugned notice does not fullfil the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. In support of above, reliance is placed upon Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran and Others Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (63) ACC 374, wherein a learned Single Judge has observed as follows in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8:

¶13

"6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by parties Counsel and after going the impugned notice, I find force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the impugned notice is wholly illegal and void. Annexure 1 is the copy of the impugned notice, which was issued by SDM Mawana (Meerut) to the applicants, whereby they were called upon to appear on 10.12.2004 and show cause as to why they be not ordered to execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- and furnish two sureties each in the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year. In this notice it is only mentioned by the SDM concerned that he is satisfied with the report of S.O. of P.S. Mawana that due to old litigation, there is enmity between the parties, due to which there is likelihood of the breach of peace. It is not mentioned in this notice that what type of litigation is going on between the parties and in which Court the said litigation is pending. Number of the case and other details of the said litigation have also not been mentioned in the impugned notice. As such the impugned notice issued by the learned SDM Mawana is vague and it does not fulfil the requirements of Section 111, Cr.P.C. This type of notice has been held to be illegal by this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. (supra).

¶14

7. Making an order under Section 111 of the Code is not an idle formality. It should be clear on the face of the order under Section 111, Cr.P.C. that the order has been passed after application of judicial mind. If no substance of information is given in the order under Section 111, the person against whom the order has been made will remain in confusion. Section 114 of the Code provides that the summons or warrants shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 111. This salutary provision has been enshrined in the Code to give notice of the facts and the allegations which are to be met by the person against whom the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. are drawn.

¶15

8. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings under Section 107/116 of the Code some times cause irreparable loss and unnecessary harassment to the public, who run to the Court at the costs of their own vocations of life. Unless it is absolutely necessary, proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr.P.C. should not be resorted to. Experience tells that proceedings like the one under Section 107/116 of the Code are conducted in a most lethargic and lackadaisical manner by the learned Executive Magistrate causing harassment to public beyond measure. "

¶16

In view of aforesaid, Court has examined the impugned notice dated 04.02.2023, issued by City Magistrate, Mathura under section 111 Cr.P.C. The Court finds that impugned notice contains

¶17

a bare recital that there is apprehension of commission of cognizable offence. Impugned notice does not contain full substance of information given by concerned Police Officer. Consequently, concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously while issuing the impugned notice dated 04.02.2023.

¶18

In view of above, the impugned noticed dated 04.02.2023, issued by City Magistrate, Mathura, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶19

Consequently, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed . Impugned notice dated 04.02.2023 is hereby quashed. City Magistrate, Mathura shall issue a fresh notice after undertaking requisite exercise in the light of observations made herein above.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 Ashutosh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vakil Quraishi v. State of U.P.and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Quraishi v. State of U.P.and 6 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

Ankur Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheo Prasad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Singh Sengar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subedar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another