Allowed

Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024A482/13266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that a notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. issued by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate lacking full substance of police report and recorded judicial satisfaction was patently illegal and liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the notice/order dated 21.02.2024 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda under Section 111 Cr.P.C.

Chandra Bhan Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146376

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13266 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Singh,Ramesh Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order/notice dated 21.02.2024 under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C., issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda in Criminal Case No. 153 of 2024 (State Vs. Chandra Bhan Singh), Police Station-Tindwari, District-Banda (Annexure-1 to the affidavit).

¶10

Record shows that Incharge Inspector of Police StationTindwari, District-Banda, submitted a report that on account of a dispute regarding partition of temple property, there is eminent apprehension regarding breach of peace.

¶11

On the basis of said police report, opposite party-2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda issued the notice/order dated 21.02.2024 directing the applicant to show cause as to why he be not directed to submit a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of like amount for ensuring good behaviour and conduct.

¶12

Thus feeling aggrieved by aforesaid notice/order dated 21.02.2024, applicant-Chandra Bhan Singh has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant contends that the notice/order dated 21.02.2024, issued by opposite party-2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda, is patently illegal. Same does not

¶14

contain full particulars nor the full substance of Police Report, on the basis of which aforesaid notice has been issued. No personal satisfaction has been recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda either. It is thus urged that impugned notice does not fulfill the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. In support of above, reliance is placed upon a judgment of this court in 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:

¶15

"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).

¶16

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

¶17

person against whom the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. are drawn.

¶18

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."

¶19

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that since sufficient material exists on record necessitating the issuance of notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.

¶20

In view of above, this Court has itself examined the impugned notice/order dated 21.02.2024, issued by opposite party-2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda under Section 111 Cr.P.C. Upon examination, the Court finds that the impugned notice contains a bare recital that there is apprehension of breach of peace. The same does not contain full substance of information given by concerned Police Officer nor does it show the satisfaction of opposite party-2 necessitating an order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. The same contains a bald conclusion. Consequently, concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously while issuing the impugned notice/order dated 21.02.2024.

¶21

In view of above, the impugned notice/order dated 21.02.2024, issued by opposite party-2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda, cannot be sustained.The same is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶22

As a result, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶23

It is, accordingly, allowed .

¶24

The impugned notice/order dated 21.02.2024 issued by opposite party-2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Banda (Annexure-1 to the affidavit) is, hereby, quashed.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Vinay

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of Up 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

Kale Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ram Dilawari vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrawati and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and ANOther

Jahiruddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradumn Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Raj Kumar Jaiswal and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and Another