Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) HEARD Sri Deepak Kaushik, advocate for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr. P.C.'), the proceeding of the Case No. 2157/9 of 2008, State v. Nagendra and others, under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. P. S. Janshath, district Muzaffarnagar is sought to be quashed. From the record, it transpires that Sri Prahlad Singh s/o Ikhtyar Singh resident of Malikpura Majra Kaval, P. S. Janshath, district Muzaffarnagar had moved an application in the Court of S.D.M. Janshath (Muzaffarnagar) on 15.10.2008. On the basis of that application without calling for any report from P. S. concerned, the S.D.M., Janshath passed order under Section 111, Cr. P.C. on 17.10.2008, in consequence whereof notices were issued to the applicants to appear in his Court on 24.10.2008 to show cause as to why they be not ordered to execute a personal bond of rupees one lac and furnish two sureties each in the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year. On the basis of that order, Case No. 2157/9 of 2008 was registered against the applicants under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C., the proceeding of which has been challenged by the applicants through the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned notice issued by the S.D.M., Janshath against the applicants is void and wholly illegal, because the said notice is based on the order passed by the S.D.M. on 17.10.2008 without applying his judicial mind and hence, the entire proceedings of the case should be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction, as continuance of the said proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The contention of the learned counsel is that merely on the basis of the application moved by Sri Prahlad Singh, impugned order under Section 111, Cr. P.C. was passed without calling for any report from the P.S. concerned and since the allegations made in the said application are vague and without any substance, hence, the impugned order is wholly illegal and further proceeding of the case which are based on that order are also illegal.
(3.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration, the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the applicants has got force and must be accepted. Annexure-1 is the copy of the application dated 15.10.2008, which was moved by opposite party No. 2 Prahlad Singh in the Court of S.D.M., Janshath for taking action against the applicants. In that application, vague allegation about giving threatening by the applicants to Prahlad Singh has been made. No date has been mentioned about the incident in which threatening was given by the applicants or any altercation had taken place between the parties. It is only mentioned in the said application that "gaon ke Narendra va Bittu putragan Seva Singh, Pinder s/o Balkar, Kanta va Kala putragan Gopal, Devendra va Laddi putragan Soran niwasi Gram Malikpura Majra Kaval Thana Jansath TehsilJansath bahut hi jhagdalu va sarkash kisma ke log hain aur aaye din prarthi va prarthi ke parivar ke sath gali galoj va jhagda fisad karte rehte hain jisse mauke par shanti bhang ka bhari andesha hai. Uprokt Narendra aadi ke virudh kanooni karyavahi ki jani aavashyak hai." It is not mentioned in the application of opposite party No. 2 as to on which date and place an incident of giving threatening took place between the parties. The impugned order shows that on receipt of the said application, the learned S.D.M. even did not care to call for a report from P.S. concerned with a view to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made therein and merely on the basis of the said application which contained vague allegations, impugned order under Section 111, Cr. P.C. has been made. Therefore, I entirely agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that impugned order has been passed by the learned S.D.M. without applying his judicial mind and hence, the proceedings of the case, which are based on the said order, are liable to be quashed. Section 114, Cr. P.C. lays down that every summons or warrant issued under Section 113 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 111 and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under, the same. Notice issued under Section 111, Cr. P.C. in present case in pursuance of the impugned order shows that copy of the said order was not annexed with that notice. As such compliance of Section 114, Cr. P.C. was also not made, which is also serious lacuna in the case.;