6.wp.2500-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2500 OF 2009 Naval P. Sharma. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 3 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Vinayak V. Katti, Advocate i/b. P.B. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P., for the Respondent - State. .... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Affidavit in reply has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. An order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. is challenged in this Petition. With consent of parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage. 3. The order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. can be passed only after a 6.wp.2500-09 2 notice is given under Sections 107, 108, 109 or 110 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and after offering a chance to the person concern to show-cause as to why he should not be asked to give a bond, an order can be passed by the Magistrate under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.. In this case, we have found that no notice under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. has been given and without giving a show- cause notice and without offering a chance to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the order be not passed against him under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order, as such, is an order without jurisdiction and without any authority in law. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. (BILAL NAZKI,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)