Allahabad High Court
Netrapal Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 June, 2010
Author: Virendra Singh
Bench: Virendra Singh
Court No. - 40 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21507 of 2010 Petitioner :- Netrapal Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Arvind Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and perused the record.
This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") to quash the notice dated 11.06.2010 issued by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bharthana, District Itawa, under section 107/111 of the Cr.P.C.
The main ground for challenging the notice is that the learned Executive Magistrate has issued the notice on a printed proforma and did not apply his mind before calling for the applicant to show cause.
The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case of Siya Nand Tyagi v State of U.P. [1993(3) ACC page 146], the excerpts of which are being reproduced below:
"The case presents a sorry state of affairs. The order under Sec. 111 of the Code has been passed on a printed proforma which blanks have been filled in by the learned Magistrate. Judicial orders are to be passed after applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. I have gone through the printed order passed under Sec. 111. It is distressing to note that there is no mention of the substance of information received by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on which he took action. Making an order under Sec. 111 of the Code is not an idle formality. It should be clear on the face of the order under Sec. 111 that the order has been passed after application of judicial mind. If no substance of information is given in the order under Sec. 111 the person against whom the order has been made will remain in confusion... " Similarly he placed reliance on the case of Naresh Kumar Jain & others v State of U.P. [1993(30) ACC page 227], the excerpts of which are also being reproduced below:
".....The order made under Sec. 111 in the present case does not at all disclose the substance of information received by the Magistrate. The order has been passed in a most mechanical manner. It is distressing to note that the repeated pronouncement of this court as also the pronouncements made by the Supreme Court have fallen on the deaf ears of our Executive Magistrates who still treat the making of order under Sec. 111 an idle formality. Apart from it is also submitted that the notice is vague and does not disclose at all the substance of information received by the Magistrate."
In view of the fact that the notice impugned has been prepared on a printed proforma without application of mind and is silent in regard to the substance of information for initiating the proceedings under sections 107/116 of the Code, therefore, the impugned notice is hereby quashed. It will however be open to the learned Executive Magistrate to issue a fresh notice under section107/111 Cr.P.C. after making due compliance of the legal requirements that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition is allowed.
Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.6.2010 Naresh