Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 573 (ALL)

Sukhdev Singh and another v. State of U. P.

2010-02-11

SURENDRA SINGH

body2010
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arises out of the order passed under Section 111 Cr.P.C. passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sahawar, Kanshiram on 6.1.2010. 2. The applicants have been given a notice to show cause as to why they should not be required to furnish personal bonds for their good behaviour for a period of one year and also one surety for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that notice under challenge is void and proceedings against the applicants are a nullity and without jurisdiction as 'substance of information' received, as required is incomplete, vague and ambiguous and notice is itself defective. 4. It has further been contended that the impugned notice does not fulfil the requirement of mandatory provisions of Section 111 Cr.P.C. Thus notice is null and void and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are nullity. Reliance has been placed by the counsel on a number of decisions of this court, such as Ranjit Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2002(45) ACC 627, Aurangjeb and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2004(50) ACC 734, Shivkant Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. 2005 (53) ACC 699, Siyanand Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. 1993 (30) ACC 146. 5. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and after perusing the materials placed on record, I am of the considered view that the notice issued by the Magistrate is wholly defective and the Magistrate has committed gross illegality in issuing the notices to the applicants under Section 111 Cr.P.C. as the same do not fulfil the mandatory requirements. 6. Thus, in view of the legal position herein above mentioned, it is clear that the word 'information' under Section 111 Cr.P.C. relates to the information mentioned in Section 107(1) and the words ' show cause' under Section 111 also refer to the words ' Show Cause' under Section 107 (1) Cr.P..C. Thus, a person cannot reasonably expected to show cause against an inference, the fact leading are not disclosed in the notice. The substance of the information received by the learned Magistrate under Section 107 Cr.P.C. will mean the substance of allegations of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the information. The substance of the information received by the learned Magistrate under Section 107 Cr.P.C. will mean the substance of allegations of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the information. Thus the concerned Magistrate has, therefore, to specify in the notice substance of the facts and circumstances which are contained in the information that has come to him, and not only the fact that he has received an information from which an inference can be drawn that there is likelihood of breach of peace. The inference about the existence of apprehension of breach of peace is to be drawn by the Magistrate, prima facie, from the facts that come to his knowledge and after drawing that inference, he has to issue notice to the party to show cause as to why on the facts and circumstances alleged in the information received by him action be not taken. 7. In the present case, order passed by the Magistrate only indicates that the inference drawn by the learned Magistrate from the information received by him from the Station Officer and does not contain the substance of the facts and circumstance mentioned in the report from which the learned Magistrate drew the inference to the apprehension of breach of peace. On account of this, notice does not comply with the requirement of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The notices issued by the learned Magistrate to the applicants are quashed and the concerned Magistrate is directed to proceed to pass a fresh order keeping in view of the aforesaid observations in accordance with law.