Allowed

Mohammad Firoz Alias Bhura v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024A482/25143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing a preventive notice issued by the City Magistrate. The Court held that the magistrahte failed to record personal satisfaction as required, instead merely reiterating the police report, and thus the notice was arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 15.1.2024 issued by the City Magistrate, Meerut under Section 110-G Cr.P.C. and 111 Cr.P.C. is quashed.

Mohammad Firoz Alias Bhura vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25143 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Firoz Alias Bhura Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gufran Ahmad Khan,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Gufran Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Challenge in this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the order dated 15.1.2024, passed by City Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 761 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs Mohammad Firoz alia Bhura) under section 110-G Cr.PC, Police StationKotwali, District Meerut, pending in the Court City Magistrate, Meerut.

¶7

Record shows that police report dated 6.1.2024 was submitted by Circle Officer, Police Station- Kotwali, Meerut and Inspector Inccharge, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut addressed to City Magistrate, Meerut stating therein that following three cases have been registered against applicant- Mohammad Firoz Alias Bhura.

¶8

(i) Case Crime No. 085 of 2023, under sections 448, 188 IPC

¶9

(ii) C.N.R. No. 86 of 2023. dated 30.6.2023

¶10

(iii) Beat Information No. 42, dated 28.12.2023

¶11

Police report further states that there is terror of the applicant and therefore, he should not be allowed to remain free. As such, surety be obtained from applicant.

¶12

In response to the said police report, the City Magistrate, Meerut issued the notice dated 15.1.2024 under section 111 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to show cause why personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of like amount be not directed to be submitted by applicant.

¶13

Thus feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned notice dated 15.1.2024, issued by City Magistrate, Meerut applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Mr. N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior counsel for applicant contends that from perusal of the impugned notice, it is apparent that no personal satisfaction has been recorded by City Magistrate, Meerut necessitating the issuance of notice under section 111 Cr.P.C. The City Magistrate, Meerut has simply reiterated the contents of chalan report submitted by Circle Officer/Incharge-Inspector, Police Station-Kotwali, District Meerut, and has not applied his independent mind as to whether notice under section 111 Cr.P.C. is required to be issued to the applicant or not. On the above premise, he, therefore contends that impugned notice is not only illegal but also arbitrary. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶15

To buttress his submission he has relied upon the order dated 8.9.2017, passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3537 of 2008 (Ayodhya Prasad and Others). Copy of which has been appended as Annexure-10 to the affidavit and also the order dated 30.5.2024, passed by this Court in application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7445 of 2024 (Imran Qureshi Vs. State of U.P. and Another), copy of which is appended as Annexure-12 to the affidavit.

¶16

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He submits that Circle Officer, Kotwali, Meerut and the Inspector Incharge, Kotwali, Meerut, in their report dated 15.1.2024 have clearly expressed their satisfaction qua the activity of the applicant. Furthermore the effect of the impugned notice is only preventive and not punitive. Since the notice impugned in present application is simply a show cause notice remedy lies to applicant to appear before authority concerned and show cause. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Gufran Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the issue involved in this application is whether the impugned notice issued by City Magistrate, Meerut record his personal satisfaction or not.

¶18

Admittedly, impugned notice has been issued on the basis of police report. No personal satisfaction has been record by City

¶19

Magistrate, Meerut, insisting the issuance of notice under section 111 Cr.P.C. In identical circumstances, this Court has quashed such notice. Learned A.G.A. inspite of his vehement opposition to the present application could not point out from impugned notice that the said notice was issued by the City Magistrate after he recorded his personal satisfaction upon the police report.

¶20

In view of above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶21

It is accordingly allowed.

¶22

The impugned notice dated 15.1.2024, passed by City Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 761 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs Mohammad Firoz alia Bhura) under section 110-G Cr.PC, Police Station- Kotwali, District Meerut is hereby quashed.

¶23

Cost made easy.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Arshad

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Firoz Alias Bhura v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Firoz Alias Bhura v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Gaurav Falaixi vs State of Up and Another

Yusuf and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Juber Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prasad Soni and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dillan Kha vs State of U.P. and Another