KUNWAR LAL Vs. BISHWANATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BISHWANATH Manbhari and Ram Naresh, opposite parties nos. 1 to 3, moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghatampur, u/Secs. 107/116, Cr.P.C. (new) on 21-12-1976 alleging that the applicant and 34 others are members of the same party and are used to terrorise the public by committing illegal acts. They have old enmity with Bishwanath and by use of force they have illegally placed one Peeru in possession of certain property which has given rise to reasonable apprehension of breach of the peace. On the same day the S.D.M. passed the following order.

(2.) IN conformity with the said order summons accompanied by a notice con­taining all the information required by Sec. 111, Cr.P.C. were issued to the opposite parties. Only one of them, namely, Kunwar Lal, filed an applica­tion u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. (new) for quashing the said proceedings on the ground that the order passed u/Sec. 111, Cr.P.C. did not comply with the requirements of this section and as such, proceedings were bad. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this court the applicants relied on the case of Nadar v. State (1964 A.L.J. 1103) and Gauri Shanker v. State of U. P.(1969 A.W.R. 416). In support of his contention the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the case of Zahir Ahmad v. Ganga Prasad (1962 A.W.R. 543). Although the learned Single Judge was of opinion that the notice sent with the summons conformed to the requirements of-Sec. 111, Cr.P.C. and there was no defect in the proceedings yet in view of the conflicting decisions he referred the matter to a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that the matter has come up before us.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further it may be stated that Sec. 111 of the new Code which corresponds to S. 112 of the old Cr.P.C. reads as follows :