Bombay High Court Quashes Notice Under Section 111 CrPC for Non-Application of Mind and Vague Allegations — Use of Printed Proforma Without Recording Reasons Renders Notice Invalid

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 192
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Ruben Franco, challenged a notice dated 6/01/2017 issued under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Deputy Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mapusa (respondent no.3). The petitioner alleged that the notice was politically motivated, issued at the behest of the ruling MLA whom the petitioner had opposed during Assembly Elections. The notice was printed on a proforma without recording reasons, contained vague apprehensions and allegations, and showed non-application of judicial mind. The petitioner also contended that the order and notice were not served in accordance with law. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, after hearing the parties, found that the notice was indeed issued on a printed proforma without recording reasons and contained vague allegations. The court held that such a notice is not sustainable in law as it violates the mandate of Section 111 CrPC which requires the Magistrate to record reasons and set forth the substance of information. The court quashed the notice and allowed the petition.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Action - Section 111 CrPC - Notice Validity - Notice under Section 111 CrPC must be based on reasons recorded by the Magistrate and must contain the substance of information received - Use of a printed/cyclostyled proforma without recording reasons and with vague allegations shows non-application of judicial mind and renders the notice invalid - Held that such notice is liable to be quashed (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a notice under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 issued on a printed proforma without recording reasons and containing vague allegations is valid in law

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Notice dated 6/01/2017 under Section 111 CrPC quashed.

Law Points

  • Section 111 CrPC requires recording of reasons before issuing notice
  • notice must contain substance of information
  • use of printed proforma without application of mind invalidates notice
  • vague allegations not sufficient
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 128

Criminal Writ Petition No.20 of 2017

2017-03-31

F. M. REIS, NUTAN D. SARDESSAI

Shri Rohit Bras De Sa for Petitioner, Shri P. Faldessai for Respondents

Mr. Ruben Franco

State, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay at Goa; Shri Ashok Gawandi, The Head Constable-4181, Calangute Police Station; The Deputy Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mapusa Sub-Division

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging notice under Section 111 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Quashing of notice dated 6/01/2017 under Section 111 CrPC

Filing Reason

Notice was politically motivated, issued on printed proforma without reasons, contained vague allegations

Issues

Whether notice under Section 111 CrPC issued on printed proforma without recording reasons is valid

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued notice was politically motivated, printed proforma without reasons, vague allegations, non-application of mind

Ratio Decidendi

A notice under Section 111 CrPC must be based on reasons recorded by the Magistrate and must contain the substance of information. Use of a printed proforma without recording reasons and with vague allegations shows non-application of judicial mind and renders the notice invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

The use of the printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here and there rendered the impugned notice a clear farce. Besides, it contained vague apprehensions and allegations apart from preconceived notions.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.20 of 2017 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging notice dated 6/01/2017 under Section 111 CrPC. Rule was issued and heard forthwith.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 111
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Caste-Based Allegations. Allegations of caste-based discrimination were found insufficient to justify criminal prosecution under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Pre...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Surety's Section 9 Petition Against Cooperative Bank for Lack of Arbitration Agreement. No Arbitration Clause Exists Between Surety and Bank in Tripartite Agreement, Rendering Petition Under Section 9 of Arbitration and Co...