JUDGMENT :

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 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 i