High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Megh Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 13398 of 2006  RD-AH 18969 (9 November 2006)
COURT NO. 45
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2006
Megh Singh and others...................................Petitioners.
State of U.P .............................................Respondent.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The order issuing notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. and the proceeding initiated under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. in pursuance to the aforesaid notice registered at case no. 701 of 2006 pending before the S.D.M. Etah has been challenged in the instant writ petition. The main ground of challenge is that notices were issued in cyclosytle format and this alone shows that there is no application of minding by the presiding Officer and learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Etah, signed the order mechanically. In the circumstances, entire proceedings initiated on the basis of a notice without recording any satisfaction of the Magistrate, that calls for preventive measures, stand vitiated in law and is liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Siya Nand Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. 1993(3) ACC 146, wherein this Court had quashed proceedings on account of the reason that initiation of proceedings under Sections 111, 151, 107, 116, 114 were on the basis of a notice in a printed format and there was complete absence of application of mind by the Magistrate concerned. Thus, it was concluded that it is not a judicial order but passed mechanically . While quashing the proceedings, reliance has been placed in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of U.P. 1997 ACC 333, the Court had observed " there are series of decisions, in which it has been held that provisions contained in section 111 of the Code, are mandatory and the non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings." Similarly, in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. S.D.M., Mangyr, the Apex Court, in para 36 of its judgment observed:
"We have seen the provisions of Section 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 emphasis 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 the general public."
In the instant case, a copy of the notice as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition is on a printed format and the blank space has been filled by mentioning name of the accused. In the same circumstances, this Court had also quashed the proceedings in another Criminal Misc. Application No. 8246 of 2005.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that learned Magistrate failed to apply his mind and arrived at a subjective satisfaction. For these reasons, the impugned order dated 19.10.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.1, Etah, in Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2006 Megh Singh and others Vs. State arising out of proceedings in case no. 701 of 2006, pending before S.D.M. Etah is quashed. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.