"How Can A Person Involved In Private Dispute Of Criminal Nature Disturb Public Tranquillity?": Allahabad HC Stays S. 111 CrPC Notice
Emphasizing that there cannot be anything precious than the personal liberty as well as the reputation of a person, the Allahabad High Court last week stayed Section 111 CrPC notice sent by an SDM to one Noor Alam which contained 'strong words' against him. The Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also observed that in the Section 111 CrPC notice, it was also not clear as to how...
Emphasizing that there cannot be anything precious than the personal liberty as well as the reputation of a person, the Allahabad High Court last week stayed Section 111 CrPC notice sent by an SDM to one Noor Alam which contained 'strong words' against him.
The Bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan also observed that in the Section 111 CrPC notice, it was also not clear as to how by involving himself in a private dispute of criminal nature, public tranquillity could be disturbed by the applicant.
The Case in brief
Challenging Section 111 Cr.P.C. notice sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bahraich, petitioner Noor Alam argued that on the basis of single under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. the Magistrate had invoked the provisions of Section 111 CrPC.
In the notice, he had been directed to show cause as to why he be not directed to furnish sureties of the amount of Rs.50,000/- and personal bond to keep peace for the next three years.
Court's observations
At the outset, the court observed that there cannot be any doubt in the proposition that summoning of a person by any criminal court for either purpose is a very serious matter.
Further, the Court also noted that it is imperative for the Magistrate while acting under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to get himself satisfied about the existence of any emergent situation and if it is so, the Court added, then he is further obliged to record the reasons for issuance of notice to any accused persons under Section 111 Cr.P.C.
The Court also took into account the fact the applicant is involved in only one criminal case and the alleged dispute is purely of personal in nature.
However, the Court noted, very strong words have been used by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bahraich in the notice and it has been stated that the applicant is a 'habitual offender' whose main occupation is 'theft', rioting, 'harboring the criminals' and is of committing assault and the public at large is living in fear due to him and there is a strong possibility of breach of public peace from him.
In this backdrop, the Court observed thus:
"It is not clear as to how the Magistrate has got the knowledge that the applicant is a habitual offender, indulging in 'marpeet', theft and in rioting and the public is living in fear due to him. It is also not clear as to why by involving in a private dispute of criminal nature the public tranquility could be disturbed by the applicant…"
Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the opined that the instant case was an example of sheer non-application of mind by the Magistrate concerned.
Therefore, staying further proceedings in the matter, the Court issued notice to the State Of UP to filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter and listed the matter for September 8, 2021.
Case title - Noor Alam @ Noor Alam Khan v. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Read Order