Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed three criminal writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging show cause notices and summonses issued by the Special Executive Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dongri Division, Mumbai. The first petitioner, Riyasat Shaukat Ali Shaikh, was involved in an altercation on 1st April 2013, leading to the registration of FIR No.49 of 2013 under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was arrested and released on bail the same day. Nearly three months later, on 20th June 2013, the second respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 111 of the Code, which was served on 24th June 2013. The other two petitioners, Aurangzeb Ayyub Khan and Shahbaz Aurangzeb Khan, were co-accused in the same FIR and received similar notices dated 10th June 2013. The petitioners argued that the show cause notices were issued without recording the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate and did not contain the substance of the information, as required by Section 111. The court examined the notices and found that they merely stated that the Magistrate was satisfied that an inquiry was necessary, without any indication of the basis for such satisfaction. The court held that the requirement of recording subjective satisfaction is mandatory and that the notices were issued mechanically without application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the show cause notices and summonses in all three petitions, allowing the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Show Cause Notice under Section 111 CrPC - Requirement of Subjective Satisfaction - The Magistrate must record his subjective satisfaction before issuing a show cause notice under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Failure to do so renders the notice invalid - The notice must also contain the substance of the information received - Held that the impugned notices were issued without application of mind and are quashed (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a show cause notice under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is valid when it does not record the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate and fails to contain the substance of the information received.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the show cause notices and summonses in all three petitions.
Law Points
- Section 111 CrPC requires recording of subjective satisfaction before issuing show cause notice
- show cause notice must contain substance of information
- failure to record satisfaction renders notice invalid
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 103
Criminal Writ Petition No.3039 of 2013, Criminal Writ Petition No.3040 of 2013, Criminal Writ Petition No.3041 of 2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, G.S. Patel
Ms. Priyanka Ghosh, Advocate, i/b Mr Moin Khan, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondents
Riyasat Shaukat Ali Shaikh, Aurangzeb Ayyub Khan, Shahbaz Aurangzeb Khan
State of Maharashtra, Special Executive Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dongri Division, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions challenging show cause notices and summonses issued under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of show cause notices and summonses issued by the Special Executive Magistrate.
Filing Reason
The show cause notices were issued without recording subjective satisfaction and without containing the substance of the information, as required by Section 111 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
FIR No.49 of 2013 was registered against the petitioners; they were arrested and released on bail on the same day.
Issues
Whether the show cause notices under Section 111 CrPC are valid when they do not record the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate.
Whether the show cause notices must contain the substance of the information received.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the show cause notices were issued mechanically without application of mind and without recording the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate.
The petitioners contended that the notices did not contain the substance of the information, as required by Section 111 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that the Magistrate must record his subjective satisfaction before issuing a show cause notice is mandatory. The notice must also contain the substance of the information received. Failure to comply renders the notice invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The show cause notice proceeds on the footing that the 2nd Respondent was satisfied that an inquiry was necessary. However, there is no indication of the basis for such satisfaction.
The requirement of recording subjective satisfaction is mandatory and the notices were issued mechanically without application of mind.
Procedural History
FIR No.49 of 2013 was registered on 1st April 2013 under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail the same day. On 20th June 2013, the 2nd Respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 111 CrPC, served on 24th June 2013. Similar notices were issued to co-accused on 10th June 2013. The petitioners filed criminal writ petitions under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC challenging the notices.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 111, Section 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 323, Section 324, Section 34, Section 504
