JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the notice dated 4.5.2011 issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Burhanpur, District-Azamgarh, under Section 110 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 25, State of U.P. v. Ramakant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C. has been issued on a printed proforma with the blanks filled in by hand and there was no application of mind on the part of the S.D.M. 4. In Mahesh Prasad Kannaujiya v. State of U.P., 2009(6) ADJ 339 this Court has held that notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C. should not be given on printed proforma and the notice on cyclostyle proforma is illegal. In the instant case, also the notice has been given on a printed proforma/cyclostyle proforma wherein name of the noticee, name of the police station, dates, name of the village are written by hand and remaining content of the notice is printed. Such a notice cannot be said to be in accordance with law and is rather illegal. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Notice dated 4.5.2011 is quashed. —————