Allahabad High Court
Naval Singh & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 28 January, 2010
Author: Bala Krishna Narayana
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana
In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24911 of 2009 Petitioner :- Naval Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Radhey Shyam Dwivedi Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present writ petition has been filed against the Chalani Report dated 11.9.2009, order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the City Magistrate Gautam Budha Nagar and order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Gautam Budha Nagar (Naval Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.) in case no. Nill of 2009 under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. whereby notice under section 111 Cr.P.C. P.S. Sector-24 Noida District Gautam Budha Nagar has been issued against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that notice under section 111, Cr.P.C. has been issued without considering the mandatory provision and without giving a substance of general nature of material allegation, only on a printed proforma. The notice has been issued without application of mind. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement reported in 1993 (30) ACC page 146, Siva Nand Tyagi Vs. State of U.P., in which High Court had quashed the proceedings on account of the reason that initiation of proceedings under section 111, 151, 107, 116, 114, Cr.P.C. on the basis of that the notice was issued in a printed proforma and there was complete absence of application of mind by the Magistrate concerned. Apart from the aforesaid facts, there are series of decisions in which he has been held by the High Court that provisions contained under section 111 of the Code are mandatory and the non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. The learned Magistrate is not expected to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent because the liberty of the persons is involved and the liberty can only be curtailed according to legal procedure and not according to the whims of the learned Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate concerned while issuing the impugned notice against the petitioners has not followed the mandatory provisions and substance of general nature has also been entered upon and has been issued on a printed format, hence there was non-application of mind.
The revisional court also fell into error in dismissing the petitioner's revision. The present writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned notice issued under section 111 Cr.P.C. P.S. Sector-24 Noida District Gautam Budha Nagar and the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 and order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the City Magistrate Gautam Budha Nagar and order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Gautam Budha Nagar are hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the learned Magistrate concerned, to issue a fresh notice if found necessary in view of the facts and circumstances in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010 R.C.