Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2597 of 2023

Applicant :- Basanti Devi And 4 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Hariom Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the

applicants, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and

perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the applicants Basanti Devi, Purnima Gaud, Lallan Ram Gaud,

Vijay Shankar Prasad Gaud, Anita, with the prayer to set aside the

impugned notice dated 08.7.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2 in

Case No. 1273 of 2022, State vs. Basanti Devi, under Sections

107, 116 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pipri, District Sonbhadra, pending

in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonbhadra and with the

further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the said case,

during pendency of the present application.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that a printed format

cannot be a satisfaction which is required under Section 111 of

Code of Criminal Procedure while issuing notice under Section

111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has placed reliance

upon the judgement of this Court in the Case of Siya Nand Tyagi

v. State of U.P. reported in 1994 Cri. LJ 1298 and also the

judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tavindar Kumar

and another v. State reported in 1990 Cri LJ 40.

I have perused the impugned notice issued under Section 111 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure and have gone through the

judgements placed before this Court.

The notice/ order is in the printed form and the blank spaces have

been filled in printed format. This shows that the printed format is

always available with the S.D.M., Sonbhadra in the matters where

the action is required in such matters.

On a pointed query being made to the learned Additional

Government Advocate, he could also not justify the notice.

In the considered opinion of the Court, when the law requires the

Magistrate to apply his mind, then there has to be a due application

of mind. The manner in which the notice has been issued, it clearly

transpires that it has been filled by some group of the office of the

City Magistrate, and thereafter he put his signatures and the notice

has got issued. This practice is reprimanded. It is expected that the

City Magistrate, shall apply his mind as required in law before

issuing notice under Section 111 for taking appropriate action

under Section 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This Court in Siya Nand Tyagi v. State of U.P. (supra) has clearly

held thus:-

"3. It is unfortunate that the requirement of Section 107 of the

Code that the Executive Magistrate receiving information should

be of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings

under the said section have become a dead letter and are always

followed in its breach. 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.

4. 107 is aimed at a person who causes reasonable apprehension of

conduct likely to lead to apprehension of breach of peace or a

disturbance of public tranquillity. It is a preventive measure.

Proceedings under Section 107/116 should not be transformed into

persecution of innocent persons at the sweet will of the police or

other persons acting mala fide.

5. In the case of Mohan Lal v. State of U.P., 1977 All Cri C 333

this Court observed: