Hon’ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.2.2013 as well as notice dated 4.2.2013 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura in Case No. 244 of 2013 under Sections 107/116 I.P.C.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that 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. It is further contended that the notice impugned is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a Judgements of this Court in Aurangzeb and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (5) ACC 734; Ranjeet Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (45) ACC 627 and Har Charan v. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (61) ACC 540, in support of his contention.

3. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A., that there is no illegality in issuing the notice.

4. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it appears that the substance of allegati