JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 24.10.2007 & the notice dated 18.12.2007 issued against the applicant in Case No. 01 of 2008 State v. Har Charan under Sections 110(g) Cr.P.C. Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State at the stage of hearing on admission of this application. Since the point involved in the matter is legal one I am deciding it at this stage on merits with the consent of the parties without calling for any counter affidavit or rejoinder affidavit. Since these proceedings have been drawn on the report of the S.O. of P.S. Barsana, District Mathura against the applicant and since Smt. Babita opposite party No. 2 is not a party in the above case, no notice is being issued to her.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that on 18.12.2007, Smt. Ritu Sharma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura issued a notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. for drawing proceedings against the applicant under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. It is a notice issued on a cyclostyled proforma and in its para 1, the contents of Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. have been reproduced. There is reference of the report of S.O. of P.S. Barsana dated 24.10.2007 against applicant Har Charan at its top, and then it has been stated in this cyclostyled notice that Har Charan is a criminal and he is involved in antisocial activities and on account of his fear and terror nobody was ready to adduce evidence against him. He can do any untoward incident which may result into breach of peace. So a notice was given to him to appear before the Court on 28.01.2008 and show cause as to why he should not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two surety bonds of the like amount for maintaining peace for three years. The grounds on the basis of which the above conclusion was drawn that he was so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security is hazardous to the community have not been mentioned in this notice and there is only a reference of the report of the S.O, P.S. Barsana, dated 24.10.2007 in support of the above allegation.
4. A copy of the above report dated 24.10.2007 has been filed as annexure 6 to the application and there is again a repetition of the requirements of Section 110(g) Cr. P.C. and at its bottom in the column of criminal history of the applicant, there is reference of Case Crime No. 264 of 2007 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 452 I.P.C. P.S. Barsana against the applicant.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the aforesaid case crime 264 of 2007, originally N.C.R. No. 54 of 2007 was registered on the report of Smt. Babita against Vijai Singh, Gopi Chandra, Smt. Leela & Smt. Somwati under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C in respect of the incident which had allegedly taken place on 29.06.2007 at 3.30 p.m. This N.C.R. was registered against the above-named accused of that case on 29.06.2007 at 6.30 p.m. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that the name of present applicant - Har Charan does not find place in this N.C.R. as an accused, and the allegation in the above F.I.R is that Smt. Babita had gone to these accused persons to enquire about her husband, and then all these above-named four accused persons had beaten her by kicks, fists, lathi, Danda, and had abused her.
6. It further appears that after the lapse of four days, Smt. Babita moved another application before the S.O., Barsana on 03.07.2007 in which she stated that on 29.06.2007 an incident of Maar Peet had taken place with her but in that incident Vijai Singh, Gopi Chandra, Smt. Leela and Smt. Somwati (named in the above F.I.R) had not participated, and she had lodged this wrong report against them on account of being perplexed. She stated that actually Har Charan, Mahesh, Veer Pal and Prem Pal had committed Maar Peet with her after entering her house, and then on the basis of this application N.C.R. No. 54 of 2007 was converted into Case Crime No. 264 of 200| adding offences under Sections 324 & 452 I.P.C against the above-named newly added accused persons.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that thus a perusal of the case upon which the S.O., Barsana has placed reliance for taking action against the applicant under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. goes to show that the applicant was not named in the original F.I.R. dated 29.06.2007 which was lodged soon after the incident, and the subsequent addition of the name of the applicant Har Charan and three others as participants in place of those named in the original N.C.R. after the lapse of four days goes to show that the entire case against Har Charan is false, and so the proceedings should be quashed.
8. The learned A.G.A. submitted in his reply that only a show cause notice was issued to the applicant and he had the efficacious remedy to challenge the proceedings by filing reply to the notice, and the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In reply, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in this case, the record shows that the learned Magistrate has simply signed a cyclostyled notice without application of mind because if she had gone through the record of Case Crime No. 264 of 2007 referred in the report of the S.O., P.S. Barsana, she would have come to know that the applicant was not named as an accused person in the N.C.R and his name was added as an accused after expiry of four days from the incident, and that, besides implication of the applicant as accused in that case at such a later stage, no material was referred to in that report to show that the applicant was terrorist and dangerous person and that his being at large without security was hazardous to the community. He has further pointed out that on this report of the S.O. the rubber stamp "awalokit notice 111 Cr.P.C. ke antargatjari hai", was affixed and the learned S.D.M. without application of mind has simply initiated it at the relevant place of the rubber stamp. It was further pointed out the notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. is also a cyclostyled notice and Har Charan's particulars only have been mentioned in it with a reference of the report of the S.O. Barsana dated 24.10.2007 without mentioning the facts as to how the applicant was desparate and dangerous to the community. He submitted when an order is passed and a notice is issued without application of mind, as has been done in the present case, the same can be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as issuance of such an order and notice amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.
9. I agree with the above contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant because there is nothing in the report of the S.O., P.S. Barsana, District Mathura dated 24.10.2007 to show as to how the applicant was so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. The notice issued on the basis of such a vague report and the proceedings drawn on the basis of such a vague notice amount to abuse of the process of the Court and so they can be challenged by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. therefore deserves to be allowed and the order of learned Magistrate for issuance of notice to the applicant passed on the above report dated 24.10.2007 and the notice dated 18.12.2007 issued in pursuance thereof deserve to be set aside. The State shall however be at liberty to draw afresh proceedings against the applicant under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law giving particulars of all that material in the notice in case there is sufficient material before it for drawing proceedings against the applicant.
11. Hence the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the report dated 24.10.2007 of the S.O. P.S. Barsana, District, Mathura and the notice dated 18.12.2007 issued by the S.D.M. Chhata, District Mathura are set aside and the proceedings drawn against the applicant on the basis of the above order and notice are hereby quashed, The State is however at liberty to draw a fresh proceedings against the applicant in accordance with the provisions of law as discussed above.