# Shiv Kumar & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1045 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-11 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44038 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote 1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Headnote: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Compromise between parties - Scope - Where dispute between parties is essentially private and personal in nature and parties have entered into a genuine compromise, and continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process of Court, High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice - Even in non-compoundable offences, proceedings can be quashed if offence does not have serious societal impact - Application allowed. Case Law Discussed: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan Result: Application allowed. Criminal proceedings quashed on the basis of compromise. ## Text 7 All. Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1045 13. It is a well-established law that the law of evidence is not applicable in the case of the departmental proceedings, whereas it is applicable in criminal cases. Thus, even if a person has been acquitted by the Court on the same charge, regular departmental enquiry can be held. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Regulation 493(c) of the Police Regulations, which read as under: "493. (c) If the accused has been judicially acquitted or discharged, and the period for filing an appeal has elapsed and/or no appeal has been filed the Superintendent of Police must at once reinstate him if he has been suspended; but should the findings of the Court not be inconsistent with the view that the accused has been guilty of negligence in, or unfitness for, the discharge of his duty within the meaning of Section 7 of the Police Act, the Superintendent of Police may refer the matter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and ask for permission to try the accused departmentally for such negligence or unfitness." 14. However, I find that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Regulation 493(c) of the U.P. Police Regulations needs consideration by the authority concerned. 15. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 19th February, 1998 passed by the second respondent is set aside. It is left open to the respondents to conduct a regular departmental proceeding. While taking the said decision the authority concerned shall pay regard to the provisions of Regulation 493 (c) of the U.P. Police Regulations. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 17779 Of 2016 Shiv Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Shashank Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. 1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Headnote: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Compromise between parties - Scope - Where dispute between parties is essentially private and personal in nature and parties have entered into a genuine compromise, and continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process of Court, High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure ends of justice - Even in non-compoundable offences, proceedings can be quashed if offence does not have serious societal impact - Application allowed. Case Law Discussed: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan Result: Application allowed. Criminal proceedings quashed on the basis of compromise. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. A Chalani Report dated 10.04.2016 was received by S.D.M., Sirsaganj, district Firozabad who on the basis of such report issued a notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. dated 12.4.2016 to the applicants asking them to show cause why they may not be required to furnish personal bonds of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of six months. 3. By means of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have approached this Court praying to quash the aforesaid notice on the ground that it is on a printed proforma with certain blanks which have been filled in with pen and ink by someone and the Magistrate has simply put his initial signatures on it. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the notice is ambiguous and it suffers from vagueness, therefore, proceeding on the basis of such notice is a nullity. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently argued that the provisions of Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with by the learned Magistrate while issuing the notice hence in wake of the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. S.D.M. Monghyr (2); AIR 1971 SC 2486 case the notice and the entire criminal proceedings be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application, but he has fairly conceded that the impugned notice suffers from vagueness and it is on a printed proforma wherein only by filling in the gaps the reason for issuing notice has been communicated to the applicants. 6. The impugned notice which has been issued to the applicants, by filling the gaps on printed proforma signed by the S.D.M., Sirsaganj, district Firozabad shows that the applicants were called upon to show cause in the court as to why they should not be ordered to execute a personal 7 All. Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1047 bond of Rs. 50,000/- and to furnish two sureties, each in the like amount, to keep peace. A perusal of impugned notice shows that no ground is mentioned in this notice to apprehend the breach of peace which is a mandatory requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. Section 111 Cr.P.C. provides :- "When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required." 7. In Shiv Kant Tripathi Versus State of U.P. & Anr. 2005(3) JIC 477 (All), this Court while allowing the application under section 482 Cr.P.C., has quashed the notice served on printed proforma and has held such notice is null and void and the proceedings initiated on its basis are not maintainable. 8. In the case of Madhu Limaye's case (supra), the apex court, in para 36 of its judgment has observed as under:- "We have seen the provisions of Sec. 107. That section says that action is to be taken in the manner here-in-after provided and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasize the safeguards built into the procedure because from there will arise the consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public order or in the interest of general public." 9. The Apex Court has further observed in Para 37 as under:- "Since the person to be proceeded against, has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility at his hands. Although the section speaks of the ''substance' of the information, it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word ''substance' means the essence of the most important parts of the information." 10. So far as the present case is concerned, it clearly appears that the learned SubDivisional Magistrate, while issuing the impugned notice dated 12.4.2016 has thrown the mandatory provisions of Section 111 of the Code to the winds and has prepared a printed 1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES proforma. The learned Magistrate has also not recorded his opinion that there existed sufficient ground to take action under the provisions of Section 107 of the Code. 11. In the impugned notice, the pith and substance of the information received is not given which could have formed the basis for apprehending breach of peace. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the learned S.D.M., Sirsaganj, district Firozabad may be said to be a vague notice which does not fulfill the requirements of Section 111 of Cr. P. C. 12. This type of notice has been held to be illegal by this Court in the case of State Versus Baleshwar and others decided on 8-8-2008 and reported in (63) ACC page 374 wherein this Court has held as under:- "making an order u/s 111 of the code is not an idle formality. It should be clear on the face of the order u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 104 Cr.P.C. are drawn. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings u/s 107/116 of the Code sometimes cause irreparable loss and unnecessary harassment to the public, who run to the court at the costs of their own vacations of life. Unless it is absolutely necessary proceedings u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. should not be resorted to. Experience tells that proceedings like the one u/s 107/116 of the Code are conducted in a most lethargic and lackadaisical manner by the learned Executive Magistrate causing harassment to public beyond measures." 13. This Court in the case of Mohan Lal Versus State of U.P., 1977 ACC page 333 has expressed its feeling of dissatisfaction as under:- "there are series of decisions in which the same principles have been repeated again and again. It is distressing to note that the repeated pronouncement of this Court and also the perception made by the Supreme Court have fallen on the deaf ears of our Executive Magistrates, who still treat the making of order u/s 111 an idle formality." 14. In view of the observations made in the cases mentioned herein above, the impugned notice dated 12.4.2016 which has been issued to the applicants, by filling in the gaps in printed proforma without following the proper procedure, being wholly illegal and void, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. 15. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the impugned notice dated 12.4.2016 (Under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C., Police Station Naseerpur, district 7 All. Smt. Surya Kumari Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1049 Firozabad) which has been issued to applicants by the S.D.M., Sirsaganj, district Firozabad is quashed. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 17784 Of 2016 Smt. Surya Kumari ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicant: Nirvikar Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 6.8.2015, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, whereby at the time of disposing of the application 70B of applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the charge sheeted witness Ravi Shanker Sharma, the learned trial court holding that since the prosecution has not discharged the remaining witnesses after examining PW-1 to PW-7 and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused persons has not been recorded as yet, directed the prosecution to examine the rest witnesses mentioned in charge sheet and for issuing summon to the remaining witnesses. The impugned order dated 6.8.2015 is quashed. The trial court is directed to decide application 70B of applicant afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and further opportunity to A.D.G.C. (Criminal) to discharge any of the witnesses he wants to discharge, within one month. It is further made clear that the accused persons shall fully cooperate with the progress of trial and will remain present on each and every date fixed for recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in case any of them fails to appear or delays the disposal of trial in any other manner, the trial court shall be at liberty to pass necessary orders for cancellation of his or her bail and keep him or her under custody till conclusion of trial. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: N.A (Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.) 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant be taken on record.