Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1440 (ALL)

Surjeet Singh v. State of U. P.

2011-06-21

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2011
Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that an order purporting to be passed under Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. by the District Magistrate, Budaun asking the petitioner to show cause why they may not be required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties, each in the like amount for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of one year. Pursuant to this order proceedings under Section-110/111 Cr. P. C. were initiated against the petitioner who challenged the order of the D. M. by filing Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, District Budaun but his revision was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 04.04.2011. 3. The petitioner has now approached this Court praying that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun and the learned learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, District Budaun as well as the entire proceedings be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above order is bad in law and as such the Magistrate could not assume jurisdiction to proceed under Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. He further submitted that the order is on a cyclostyled proforma with certain blanks which have been filled in with pen and ink by someone and simply initiated by the D. M., Budaun. 5. It is further submitted that the D. M. has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on the basis of this void notice and he has placed reliance upon the case of Ranjeet Kumar and others Versus State of u.P. and others reported in 2002 (45) ACC 627. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions it is evident that notice under challenge on the ground that the notice suffers from illegality, vagueness of the substance of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete vague and ambiguous. Notice is wholly defective and invalid. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions it is evident that notice under challenge on the ground that the notice suffers from illegality, vagueness of the substance of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete vague and ambiguous. Notice is wholly defective and invalid. The D. M. has no jurisdiction to proceed on the basis of this void notice and proceedings pending against the petitioner are a nullity without jurisdiction and as the petitioner have challenged the validity of the impugned notice on the ground that it does not fulfil the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. and therefore, the notice in question is null and void and the proceedings before the D. M. are a nullity. It is well settled that the objective of setting forth in the order, the substance of information received by the D. M. is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. If the substance of the information set forth in the notice is vague and ambiguous, the very object of Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. is defeated. Unfortunately due to lack of clear perception of law the Sessions Judge has also put his seal of approval in the invalid order under Section 110/111 Cr. P. C. The lack of vigil on the part of the revisional court is regrettable. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the D. M., Budaun as well as the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the learned learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, District Budaun are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 8. The writ petition is allowed.