# Museebat @ Rahat Ali v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1301 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-01-10 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 103 of 2023 - **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/museebat-rahat-ali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49587 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 111-Prayer for quashing a notice issued under Section 110(G) Cr.P.C (citing the possibility of a breach of peace) - Notice required the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2 lac and two sureties of the same amount - Challenges the legality of the notice as it lacks with the requirements of Section 111 Cr.P.C - finds the impugned notice to be deficient in substance and lacking a judicious application. Notice is quashed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran & ors. Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (63) ACC 374 ## Text 1 All. Museebat @ Rahat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1301 ---------- (2023) 1 ILRA 1301 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 10.01.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Application U/S 482 No. 103 of 2023 Museebat @ Rahat Ali ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Gopesh Tripathi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 111-Prayer for quashing a notice issued under Section 110(G) Cr.P.C (citing the possibility of a breach of peace) - Notice required the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2 lac and two sureties of the same amount - Challenges the legality of the notice as it lacks with the requirements of Section 111 Cr.P.C - finds the impugned notice to be deficient in substance and lacking a judicious application. Notice is quashed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran & ors. Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (63) ACC 374 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard Sri Gopesh Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Diwaker Singh, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the Notice under Section 110 (g) Cr.P.C. dated 20.12.2022, Police Station Shivgarh, Raibareli, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, Raibareli and proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Record shows that Police of Police Station Shivgarh submitted a challan report dated 30.11.2022 against applicant Museebat @ Rahat Ali, whereby he has been challaned under sections 110 (G) Cr.P.C. It is alleged in aforesaid report that there is possibility of breach of peace. In order to prevent same, aforesaid person has been callaned under section 110 (G) Cr.P.C. In the interest of Justice, requisite amount of personal bond and surety bond be obtained from above named persons. 4. After aforesaid report was forwarded by S.H.O. P.S. Shivgarh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, Raibareli issued notice dated 20.12.2022 under sections 110 (G) Cr.P.C asking applicant to furnish personal bond of Rs. 2 lac and two sureties of the same amount. 5. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid notice dated 20.12.2022, applicant namely Museebat @ Rahat Ali has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for applicant contends that notice dated 20.12.2022, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, Raibareli is patently illegal. Same does not contain full particulars nor the full substance of Police Report, on the basis of which aforesaid notice has been issued. It is thus urged that impugned notice does not fulfill the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. In support of above, reliance is placed upon Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran and Others Vs. State of U.P., 1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2008 (63) ACC 374, wherein a learned Single Judge has observed as follows in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8: "6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by parties Counsel and after going the impugned notice, I find force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the impugned notice is wholly illegal and void. Annexure 1 is the copy of the impugned notice, which was issued by SDM Mawana (Meerut) to the applicants, whereby they were called upon to appear on 10.12.2004 and show cause as to why they be not ordered to execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- and furnish two sureties each in the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year. In this notice it is only mentioned by the SDM concerned that he is satisfied with the report of S.O. of P.S. Mawana that due to old litigation, there is enmity between the parties, due to which there is likelihood of the breach of peace. It is not mentioned in this notice that what type of litigation is going on between the parties and in which Court the said litigation is pending. Number of the case and other details of the said litigation have also not been mentioned in the impugned notice. As such the impugned notice issued by the learned SDM Mawana is vague and it does not fulfil the requirements of Section 111, Cr.P.C. This type of notice has been held to be illegal by this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. (supra). 7. Making an order under Section 111 of the Code is not an idle formality. It should be clear on the face of the order under Section 111, Cr.P.C. that the order has been passed after application of judicial mind. If no substance of information is given in the order under Section 111, the person against whom the order has been made will remain in confusion. Section 114 of the Code provides that the summons or warrants shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 111. This salutary provision has been enshrined in the Code to give notice of the facts and the allegations which are to be met by the person against whom the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. are drawn. 8. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings under Section 107/116 of the Code some times cause irreparable loss and unnecessary harassment to the public, who run to the Court at the costs of their own vocations of life. Unless it is absolutely necessary, proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr.P.C. should not be resorted to. Experience tells that proceedings like the one under Section 107/116 of the Code are conducted in a most lethargic and lackadaisical manner by the learned Executive Magistrate causing harassment to public beyond measure." 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed further reliance upon judgments of this Court reported in 2004 (5) ACC 734 Aurangzeb and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2002 (45) ACC 627 Ranjeet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and 2008 (61) ACC 540 Har Charan Vs. State of U.P. and another in support of his contention. 8. In view of aforesaid, this Court has examined the impugned notice dated 20.12.2022, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, Raibareli under sections 110(G) Cr.P.C. The Court finds that impugned notice contains a bare recital that there is apprehension of commission of cognizable offence. Impugned notice does not contain full substance of information given by concerned Police Officer. 1 All. Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1303 Consequently, concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously while issuing the impugned notice dated 20.12.2022. The notice under Section 110G Cr.P.C. has been issued only on the basis of one case the impugned notice does not contain the substance of allegation which has been made against the applicant and has been issued in a routine manner on a printed format. 9. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 20.12.2022, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, Raibareli, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed. 10. Consequently, present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Impugned notice dated 20.12.2022 is quashed. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahrajganj, Raibareli, shall issue a fresh notice after undertaking requisite exercise in the light of observations made herein above and in accordance with law, if deem fit under the circumstances of the case. ---------- (2023) 1 ILRA 1303 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Application U/S 482 No. 216 of 2023 Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 273-The impugned order closed the opportunity for the applicant to cross-examine PW-11, Uma Shankar Tripathi, in a case under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act - Violation of Section 273 Cr.P.C - Trial court's exercise improper. Application allowed. (E-9) (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed following main reliefs:- "For the facts, reason and circumstances as stated in accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that it may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Session Trail no.70/2015 State Vs. Brijesh Saurabh Mishra and others, arising out Crime No.237/2013, Under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangester Act concerning police station Antu District Pratapgarh pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge Court No.05, Pratapgarh by means of which he has closed the opportunity of cross examination for the applicant and also set aside the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.05 Pratapgarh in aforesaid case and direct Leaned Court below to recall the witness and allow the applicant to cross examine him in the interest of justice.