Order U/S 111 CrPC Must Contain Reasons Of Executive Magistrate's Satisfaction: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently explained the scope and necessary ingredients of an order drawn under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an Executive Magistrate.

It may be noted that when an Executive Magistrate, upon consideration of such information that there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace by a person, is satisfied that it is necessary to proceed against that person under the relevant sections (Sections 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be), then the Executive Magistrate has to first issue a show caused notice to that person under Section 111 CrPC so that he/she can be given a chance to negate the allegations or offer his explanation.

However, there are certain ingredients of this provision that are required to be fulfilled by the EM before he can issue an order under Section 111 CrPC against a person.

In this regard, stressing that the order under section 111 Cr.P.C. must be in a writing, the Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary further specified the following broad elements of an order drawn under this section:

• The substance of the information received under Sections 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C. (as the case may be),
• Upon consideration of such information, he has formed the opinion that there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and that it is necessary to proceed under the relevant sections (Sections 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be). He is not bound to draw up order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. merely because he has received a Police Report or other information,
• The amount of the bond to be executed,
• The term for which the bond is to remain in force,
• The number, character, and class of sureties if any required

Essentially, the Bench was dealing with an application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by one Titu with a prayer to quash the notice issued against him on January 3, 2022, by Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.), Bahjoi, Sambhal under section 111/110 (G) CrPC.

In the said notice, he had been asked to show cause why he may not be required to furnish personal bonds of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of one year.

Challenging the notices, the applicant argued that in the notice, it had been mentioned that he is an addicted gambler and person of criminal in nature, however, it didn't contain the details of the criminal charges pending against him and even the substance of the information against him had not been mentioned.

At the outset, the Court stressed that while issuing an order under Section 111 CrPC, the first thing that a Magistrate must do after receipt of the information referred to in Sections 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C. is to apply his mind to such information and, if he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding under the chapter, to pass an order in writing under section 111 Cr.P.C.

Now, the Court further observed that the basic object of the preliminary order being to give the person proceeded against an opportunity to meet the allegation made against him as well as the nature of the order proposed.

"The order contemplated under Section 111 Cr.P.C. requires application of mind and has to be prepared and drawn up cautiously and carefully in compliance with the provisions of section 111 Cr.P.C. and the order must contain reasons of the Magistrate satisfaction. The substance of the information is the matter upon which he has to issue show cause notice. If the substance of information is not given in the order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. the person against whom the order has been made may remain in confusion and may not be able to give an explanation," the Court added.

Against this backdrop, noting that the substance of the information set forth in the notice was vague and ambiguous, the Court allowed the petition under Section 482 and the order of notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal, PS Bahjoi, District Sambhal under Section 111/110 (G) Cr.P.C. was quashed.

However, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was given the liberty to draw fresh proceedings against the applicant in accordance with provisions of law.

Case title - Titu v. State Of U.P.And 2 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 127

Click Here To Read/Download Order