NARESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Tej Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel who both agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed of.

(2.) An order purporting to be under S. 111 Code of Criminal Procedure was made by the learned Additional City Magistrate Ist. Agra on 26-11-1992 asking the petitioners to show cause why they may not be required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 2,000.00 and two sureties, each in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year. A photo copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. On the basis of this order proceedings under S. 107/116 of the Code were initiated against the petitioners who challenged the order of the learned Magistrate by filing Criminal Revision No. 595 of 1992 in the court of Session but their revision was also dismissed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra on 11-1-1993. The petitioners have now approached this Court praying that the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the entire proceedings of the case be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the order made by the learned Magistate under S. 111, Cr. P.C. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the above order is bad in law and as such the learned Magistrate could not assume jurisdiction to proceed under S. 107, Cr. P.C. The learned counsel has invited my attention to one of my earlier decisions given in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13541 of 1992 Siya Nand Tyagi v. The State of U.P., decided on 20-10-92. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of the court to the order under S. 111 of the Code passed in the present case. The order is on a cyclostyled pro forma with certain blanks which have been filled in with pen and ink by someone and simply initialled by the Additional City Magistrate Ist, Agra. In the case of Siya Nand Tyagi v. the State of U.P. (supra) it was observed :-