VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'), the applicants have challenged the validity of impugned notice dated 02.11.2004 purporting to be issued under section 111 Cr.P.C. by the S.D.M. Mawana, District Meerut.
(2.) FROM the impugned notice (Annexure 1), it transpires that being satisfied with the report dated 02.11.2004 of S.O. P.S. Mawana, the S.D.M. Mawana District Meerut passed an order under section 111 Cr.P.C. in the proceedings under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 943/9 of 2004 (State vs. Baleshwar and others) and in pursuance of that order impugned notice was issued to the applicants to 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. Heard Sri Manoj Vashisth learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned notice purported to be issued under section 111 Cr.P.C. is void, as full substance of the police report has not been mentioned in the notice. For this contention, reliance has been placed on the case of Ranjeet Kumar & others vs. State of U.P.[2002(45) ACC 627] and Trijugi Narain Shukla vs. State of U.P. & another 1975ALR 627.;