# Preethu Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 368
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7990 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/preethu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47103
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482, 110/111 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 447 &
Prevention of the Damage to the Public Property
Act, 1984- Section 2/3 -challenge to-notice
issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate u/s
7 All. Preethu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
110G/111 Cr.P.C.- possibility breach of
peace-allegations and counter allegations made
by either side- 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- concerned Magistrate has not
acted judiciously while issuing the notice-
it has been issued only on the basis of one
case in a routine manner on a printed
format-Accordingly, the same is liable to
be quashed.(Para 1 to 10)

B. 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. 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.(Para 6)

C. The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
11.1.2021, issued by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Haraiya, Basti under sections
110/111 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.
Consequently, concerned Magistrate has
not acted judiciously while issuing the
impugned notice dated 11.1.2021. 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
noticed dated 11.1.2021, issued by Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Haraiya
Basti,
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 11.1.2021 is quashed. Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Haraiya Basti, 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.
----------
(2021)07ILR A368
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7990 of 2021

Preethu Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri Shrawan
Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482, 110/111 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 447 &
Prevention of the Damage to the Public Property
Act, 1984- Section 2/3 -challenge to-notice
issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate u/s
7 All. Preethu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
110G/111 Cr.P.C.- possibility breach of
peace-allegations and counter allegations made
by either side- 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- concerned Magistrate has not
acted judiciously while issuing the notice-
it has been issued only on the basis of one
case in a routine manner on a printed
format-Accordingly, the same is liable to
be quashed.(Para 1 to 10)

B. 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. 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.(Para 6)

C. The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran & ors. Vs St. of
U.P. (2008) 63 ACC 374

2. Aurangzeb & others Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
(2004) 5 ACC 734

3. Ranjeet Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2002) 45 ACC 627

4. Har Charan Vs St. of U.P. & anr (2008) 61
ACC 540

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for applicant through video
conferencing as well as learned A.G.A. for
State and perused the record.

2. This application under section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire
proceeding of Crime No. 79 of 2020 (State
Vs. Preethu Singh), under Section 110(G)
Cr.P.C. as well as notice under Section 111
Cr.P.C., P.S. Amaria, District- Pilibhit.

3. Record shows that Police of Police
Station Amaria, District-Pilibhit submitted
challan reports dated 12.10.2020 and
19.10.2020
against
applicant
Preethu
Singh, whereby he has been challaned
under Sections 110(G) and 111 Cr.P.C. It is
alleged in aforesaid report that Case Crime
No. 155 of 2020 under Section 447 IPC and
Section 2/3 Prevention of the Damage to
the Public Property Act, 1984 has been
registered on account of which there is
tension between parties. Allegations and
counter allegations are being made by
either side. There is every possibility of
breach of peace. In order to prevent same,
aforesaid persons has been callaned under
Sections 110(G) and 111 Cr.P.C. In the
interest of Justice, requisite amount of
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
personal bond and surety bond be obtained
from above named persons.

4. After aforesaid report was
forwarded by S.H.O. P.S. Amaria, District-
Pilibhit,
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Amaria, Pilibhit issued notices dated
12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020 under Sections
110G and 111 Cr.P.C asking applicant to
furnish personal bond of Rs. 1 lac each and
two sureties of the same amount.

5. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid
notices dated 12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020,
applicant namely Preethu Singh has now
approached this Court by means of present
application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for applicant
contends that notices dated 12.10.2020 and
19.10.2020, issued by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Amaria, Pilibhit, 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 fullfil the
requirement of Sections 110(G) and 111
Cr.P.C. In support of above, reliance is
placed upon Baleshwar S/o Ram Saran
and Others Vs. State of U.P., 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,
7 All. Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
371
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
notices
dated
12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020, issued by Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Amaria, Pilibhit under
Sections 110(G) and 111 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. Consequently,
concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously
while issuing the impugned notices dated
12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020. The notice under
Section 110G and 111 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
notices dated 12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020,
issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Amaria, Pilibhit, 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 notices
dated 12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020 are
quashed.
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Amaria, Pilibhit, 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.
----------
(2021)07ILR A371
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8078 of 2021

Surendra Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504 & 506
-
quashing
of-chargesheet
and
summoning
order-
the
impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind-the order is cryptic and does
not stand the test of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court-the cognizance
order dated 10.9.2020 cannot be legally