Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121492 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23005 of 2025 Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed seeking following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the Notice dated 06.05.2025, under Section 130 / 131 B.N.S.S., issued by the opposite party No.2, in Case No. 242 / IX of 2025 (State Vs. Prem Narayan), under Section 126 / 135 B.N.S.S., Police Station- Bisanda, District- Banda, by which the opposite party has directed to the applicant why you not deposited two security bond of Rs.50,000/- each for the period of one year to maintain the peaceful. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 not to adopt any coercive measure against the applicant during the pendency of present application before this Hon'ble Court and / or may pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order dated 06.05.2025 has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in the name of applicant and other details of the case. In the impugned notice under Section 130 / 131 BNSS, annexed as annexure no.1, merely it has been mentioned that applicant has to appear before the Deputy District Magistrate, Attarra, Banda to show cause why he must not be ordered to execute a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties and like amount to maintain peace and tranquility. In the impugned notice, there is absolutely nothing to show that regarding which dispute the notice has been issued and what information has been received. Merely general and vague allegation has been made. It was submitted that impugned notice is not in accordance with law and thus liable to be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon case of Smt. Anuradha Bhattacharjee @ Anuradha Bhattacharya Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.7869 of 2021), decided on 05.07.2021. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application but it could not be submitted that impugned order dated 06.05.2025 has been passed on a printed proforma and in the impugned notice no detail at all has been mentioned. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. In case of Smt. Anuradha Bhattacharjee (supra) in para no.6 the Court has held as under:- "6. A perusal of the notice dated 29.12.2020 reveals that it has been filled in a printed proforma. In case of Ranjeet Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another (supra), proceedings pending against the applicant were declared to be nullity and notice were set aside and proceedings were quashed on the ground that in that case, the Magistrate had not set forth in the order, the substance of information, received by him, as required by Section 111 Cr.P.C. It is held that the object of setting forth in the order, the substance of information, received by the Magistrate, is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. When examined on this touchstone, it is evident that the impugned notice is devoid of the consideration of such information, as was received by the Magistrate asking the petitioner to show cause and even there is no details of the allegations against him. Therefore, even in this case, the notice appears to be defective and invalid and therefore, on the basis of a defective and invalid notice, proceedings cannot be sustained. Therefore, notice is quashed, proceedings are set aside, however, it shall be open for the learned Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if he deems necessary and if the cause of action still subsist." 7. From the aforesaid case law, it is apparent that an order under Section 130 BNSS / 111 Cr.P.C. can not be passed on a printed proforma. In fact, in such notice the Magistrate has to set forth the substance of information received by him as required under Section 111 Cr.P.C. / 130 BNSS. The object of setting forth in the order, the substance of information received by the Magistrate, is to inform the person asked to show cause what allegations he has to answer. In the impugned notice under Section 130 BNSS, there is absolutely nothing to show that what information was received by the learned Deputy District Magistrate and what allegation the applicant has to answer. Further, the order dated 06.05.2025 has been passed on a printed proforma without application of any judicial mind. The information mentioned in the impugned notice is wholly vague, ambiguous and incomplete. Thus, the impugned notice does not fulfill the requirement of Section 130 BNSS and in fact the same is defective and invalid. 8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 and notice dated 06.05.2025 is set aside. However, it shall be open to the learned Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if he deems necessary. 9. The application u/s 528 BNSS is allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad