C.P.Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the materials on record. This application has been preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with prayer for quashing the notice dated 21.6.2004 under section 111 Cr.P.C. and under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. in case No. 250/2004, P.S. Kotwali, District Behat before S.D.M. Saharanpur.
(2.) It is submitted that notice under challenge is void and proceedings against the applicants are nullity without jurisdiction as substance of information received as required is incomplete, vague and ambiguous and notice is only defective. It is also submitted that on report of police on 21.6.2004, a notice under section 111 Cr.P.C. to initiate proceedings under sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. is served upon the applicants vide Annexure-1 and the impugned notice does not fulfil the requirements of mandatory provisions of section 111 Cr.P.C., thus the notice is null and void and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are a nullity and the impugned notice is on a printed proforma in which gaps are filled and the substance of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete, vague and ambiguous. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate (S.D.M.) has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on the basis of this void notice and he has placed reliance in case of Ranjeet Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (45) ACC 627 (Alld.) (Lucknow Bench) .
(3.) Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions it is evident that notice under - challenged on ground that the notice suffers from illegality, vagueness the sub - stance of information received as set forth in wholly incomplete, vague and ambiguous notice is wholly defective and invalid. The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed on basis of this void notice and proceedings pending against the applicants are a nullity without jurisdiction and as the 1. 2002 (45) ACC 627 (Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench). learned Counsel for the applicants has challenged the validity of the impugned notice on the ground that it does not fulfil the requirement of mandatory provisions of section 111 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the notice in question is null and void and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are a nullity. It is well settled that the objective of setting forth in the order, the substance of the information received by the Magistrate is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. If the substance of the in- formation set forth in the notice is vague and ambiguous, the very object of section 111 Cr.P.C. is defeated.;