Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Farhan Nasir Khan and Jhanzeb Amir Kamal Khan @ Guddu Pathan, filed two 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 dated 20th July 2013 issued by the 2nd Respondent, the Special Executive Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dongri Division, Mumbai, under Section 111 of the CrPC. The notices were based on allegations in FIR No.42 of 2013 dated 22nd March 2013 for offences under Sections 324, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also FIR No.111 of 2011 dated 4th August 2011 for offences under Sections 324, 504, 506, 392, 384 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioners claimed that the incident leading to FIR No.42 of 2013 was accidental, involving falling debris from a construction site, and that they were falsely implicated. They were arrested and later released on bail. The show cause notices required them to appear before the 2nd Respondent on 7th August 2013, which they did, and they filed applications for inspection and certified copies. The court held that the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 111 CrPC requires the Magistrate to record his subjective satisfaction that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility, based on material on record. The impugned notices were issued mechanically without any independent application of mind by the Special Executive Magistrate, and did not disclose the grounds of satisfaction or the material relied upon. The court quashed the notices and summonses, holding that they were invalid for non-application of mind and lack of subjective satisfaction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 111 CrPC - Show Cause Notice - Subjective Satisfaction - The issuance of a show cause notice under Section 111 CrPC requires the Magistrate to record his subjective satisfaction that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility, based on material on record. Mere reference to FIRs without independent application of mind renders the notice invalid. (Paras 6-7) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 111 CrPC - Non-Application of Mind - The impugned notices were issued mechanically without any independent application of mind by the Special Executive Magistrate. The notices did not disclose the grounds of satisfaction or the material relied upon, and were therefore liable to be quashed. (Paras 6-7) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 111 CrPC - Show Cause Notice - Grounds - A show cause notice under Section 111 CrPC must contain a statement of the substance of the information received, the amount of bond, the term, and the number of sureties. Failure to do so vitiates the notice. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether show cause notices and summonses issued under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on allegations in FIRs, are valid without recording subjective satisfaction and without disclosing the grounds of satisfaction.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned show cause notices and summonses dated 20th July 2013 issued under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Law Points
- Section 111 CrPC requires recording of subjective satisfaction before issuing show cause notice
- Non-application of mind vitiates proceedings under Chapter VIII CrPC
- Show cause notice must disclose grounds and materials relied upon
