Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State. The facts of the case in brief are that an order purporting to be passed under Section 111 Cr. P. C. by the Additional City Magistrate -Vth, Kanpur Nagar asking the applicant to show cause why he may not be required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/ - and two sureties each in the like amount for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of one year. Pursuant to this order proceedings under Section -110 Cr. P. C. were initiated against the applicant.
(2.) THE applicant has now approached this Court praying that the order passed by the Additional City Magistrate -Vth, Kanpur Nagar be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 111 Cr. P. C. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the above order is bad in law and as such the Magistrate could not assume jurisdiction to proceed under Section 110 Cr. P. C. He further submitted that the order is on a cyclostyled proforma with certain blanks which have been filled in with pen and ink by someone and simply initiated by the Additional City Magistrate -Vth, Kanpur Nagar.
(3.) IT is further submitted that the Additional City Magistrate -Vth, Kanpur Nagar has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on the basis of this void notice and he has placed reliance upon the case of Ranjeet Kumar and others Versus State of U. P. and others reported in, 2002 (45) ACC 627.;