NARENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.