# Raju Maurya @ Abhijeet Maurya v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 365
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7972 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raju-maurya-abhijeet-maurya-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47101
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482, 110/111 -
Indian
Penal
Code, 1860-
Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 147, 325,
504, 506 - Section 3(1) Da, Dha-challenge
to-notice
issued
by
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate u/s 110/111 Cr.P.C.- 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)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Raju Maurya @ Abhijeet Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
365
being released on bail and that on being so
released, he would in all probability
indulge in prejudicial activities and to
prevent him from doing so, it is necessary
to detain him. A detention order cannot be
struck down on the ground that the proper
course for the authority was to oppose the
bail application and if bail is granted
notwithstanding
such
opposition,
to
question it before a higher Court, as is
sought and pleaded by learned counsel for
the petitioner. In this regard, criteria was
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Kamarunnissa and others vs. Union of
India : (1991) 1 SCC 128 also fortified in
Champion R. Sangma vs. State of
Meghalaya : (2015) 16 SCC 253, wherein
the Apex Court was held :-

"13. In case of a person in
custody a detention order can validly be
passed (1) if the authority passing the order
is aware of the fact that he is actually in
custody; (2) if he has reason believe on the
basis of reliable material placed before him
(a) that there is a real possibility of his
being released on bail, and (b) that on being
so released he would in all probability
indulge in prejudicial activity and (3) if it is
felt essential to detain him to prevent him
from so doing."

25. It is not the case of the petitioner
that the grounds of detention while
extending the period of his detention has
not been supplied to the petitioner or any
particulars in regard to slapping detention
order upon him has not been supplied to
him.

26. However, needless to mention
here that the grounds of detention were
communicated to the petitioner along with
the detention order dated 25.10.2020. It
was further extended by the State which
was communicated to the petitioner in due
time.

27. For the reasons aforesaid, we are
of
the
considered
view
that
the
apprehension entertained by the Detaining
Authority, to the effect that petitioner's
activities are prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order, is genuine and well
founded. Thus, we do not find any illegality
in the impugned orders, warranting our
interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

28. The instant Habeas Corpus Writ
Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.

29. For the facts and circumstances of
the case, there will be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)07ILR A365
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7972 of 2021

Raju Maurya @ Abhijeet Maurya
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Narsingh Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482, 110/111 -
Indian
Penal
Code, 1860-
Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 147, 325,
504, 506 - Section 3(1) Da, Dha-challenge
to-notice
issued
by
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate u/s 110/111 Cr.P.C.- 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)

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 &o rs. 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. Narsingh Pandey,
learned counsel for applicant as well as
learned A.G.A. for State through video
conferencing and perused the record.

2. This application under section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire
proceeding of Case No. 5713 of 2021
(State Vs. Raju Maurya @ Abhijeet
Maurya) arising out of Case Crime No. 72
of 2020, under Section 110 Cr.P.C. P.S.
Paikoliya, District- Basti.

3. Record shows that Police of Police
Station Paikoliya, District- Basti submitted
a challan report dated 05.9.2020 against
applicant
Raju
Maurya
@
Abhijeet
Maurya, whereby he has been challaned
under sections 110 Cr.P.C. It is alleged in
aforesaid report that Case Crime No. 69 of
2020 under Sections 147, 325, 504, 506
IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(Amendment 2015) (State Vs. Raju Maurya
@ Abhijeet Maurya) 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
7 All. Raju Maurya @ Abhijeet Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
367
order to prevent same, aforesaid persons
has been callaned under section 110
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. Paikoliya,
District- Basti, Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Haraiya,
Basti
issued
notice
dated
11.1.2021 under sections 110/111 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
notice dated 11.1.2021, applicant namely
Raju Maurya @ Abhijeet Maurya 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 11.1.2021,
issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Hariya, Basti, 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 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., 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
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