Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41185 of 2019 Applicant :- Javed Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ibrar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Mohd. Ibrar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 19th October, 2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Zamania, District Ghazipur in Case No. 35 of 2019 under Section 111 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Dildar Nagar, District-Ghazipur, whereby the applicant has been given a notice to show cause as to why he should not be required to furnish personal bonds for his good behaviour for a period of two years and also two sureties each for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each.
The objection raised by counsel for the applicant is that impugned order has been passed without application of mind on a printed format and notice is vague and ambiguous, therefore, proceeding on the basis of said notice is a nullity. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions of this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2002 (45) ACC page 627. A notice simply states that the applicant is habitual offender and causes harassment to the general public. The witnesses from the public refrain from deposing against him on account of fear. In the circumstances, he should not be allowed to roam freely and mix with the general public. A copy of the notice has been annexed as annexure no.1 to the affidavit filed in support of this application.
Similar view has been expressed in the case of Aurangzeb and others State of U.P. and another reported in 2004 (50) ACC page 734. Paragraph of the said decision is quoted below:
"It is submitted that notice under challenge is void and proceedings against the applicants are nullity without jurisdiction as substance of information received as required is incomplete, vague and ambiguous and notice is only defective. It is also submitted on report of police on 21.6.2004, a notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to initiate proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. is served upon the applicants vide Annexure-1 and the impugned notice does not fulfil the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 111 Cr.P.C., thus the notice is null and void and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are a nullity and the impugned notice is on a printed proforma in which gaps are filled and the substances of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete, vague and ambiguous. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate (S.D.M.) has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on the basis of this void notice and he has placed reliance in the case of Ranjeet Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and others."
Similar view has also been taken by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kant Tripathi Versus State of U.P. & Another reported in 2006 (1) UPCrR.
In the present case the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has thrown the mandatory provisions of Sec.110/111 of the Code to the winds and has prepared a printed proforma. The learned Magistrate has also not recorded his opinion that there existed sufficient ground to take action under the provisions of Sec.107 of the Code.
Taking into consideration earlier decisions of this Court and perusal of a notice under Sections 111 Cr.P.C., it is abundantly clear that the proceedings initiated on its basis are not maintainable, therefore, notice dated 19th October, 2019 is held to be defective. It is quashed. The application is allowed.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Sushil/-