K.S. Lodha, J.
1. By this revision, the petitioner Gopal Lal has challenged the proceedings Under Section 110 C.r P.C. instituted against him by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ladnu.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and have gone through the record. It is agreed that the main revision may finally be disposed of at this stage.
3. On 18.1.85, the S.H.O., Ladnu filed a complaint Under Section 41/110 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner Gopal Lal in the Court of the learned Executive Magistrate, Ladnu, stating therein that the non-petitioner Gopal Lal was a bad character, quarrel some person and was in the habit of making false complaints and also used to quarrel with people and beat them. It was further stated that a case Under Sections 451 and 325 I.P.C. was registered against him on 17.9.84 on the report filed by one Loonkaran and that there were other entries in the Rojnamacha of the police station wherein his illegal acts as a wagebond had been recorded. At the end, it was also mentioned that as he was a vagabond and a dangerous person, his free existence in the society was hazardous and, therefore, he should be bound down. Along with this complaint, the F.I.R. filed by Loonkaran, the challan prepared by the police on that F.I R. and the three reports recorded in the Rojnamacha were submitted. On the perusal of this complaint, the learned Executive Magistrate on that very day passed an order to the effect that a complaint has been filed by the S.H.O., Ladnu, showing that the non-petitioner was a dangerous person and his free existence in the society was hazardous and that a number of cases have been registered against him before the police, therefore, a case Under Section 41/110 be registered and a warrant of arrest be issued against the non-petitioner and the case may be put up on 25.1.85.
4. On 25.1.85 when the non-petitioner Gopal Lal was brought to the Court under custody, the learned Magistrate observed that the charge has been read over to the non-petitioner, who has pleaded not guilty. He further observed that the non-petitioner had filed an application that a false charge has been brought against him and he will defend the same and that during the pendency of the proceedings, he was prepared to furnish security that may be fixed. The learned Magistrate thereupon directed him to furnish a security in the sum of Rs. 1000/- along with his personal bond in the same amount for keeping the peace till the disposal of the case. The petitioner has furnished the required security. However, he has now challenged the order of the learned Magistrate and hence this revision.
5. Since the very jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to initiate the proceedings Under Section 110 Cr. P.C. in the circumstances of this case has been challenged by the learned Counsel, I need not go into the question whether the present revision is maintainable or not on the ground that the order sought to be challenged and a copy of which has been filed along with the revision is only an interlocutory order.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the complaint filed by the S.H.O., Ladnu, does not make out any of the grounds enumerated Under Section 110 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner and, therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have initiated the proceedings Under Section 110 Cr. P.C. The second contention is that even if the learned Magistrate could have initiated the proceedings, he has not followed the procedure laid down in this respect Under Sections 111 to 114 Cr. P.C. and has improperly ordered a warrant of arrest to be issued against the petitioner and got him arrested.
7. I find considerable force in both the contentions and the learned P.P. has also not been able to support these orders. It will be convenient here to refer to Section 110 Cr. P.C., which runs as under:
110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders,--When a Judicial Magistrate of the first class receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who:
(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
(c) habitually protects or harbours theresa, or aids in the Concealment or disposal of stolen property, or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts, to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence,' punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under Section 489A, Section 489B, Section 489C, or Section 489D of that Code, or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abet the commission of-
(i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely-
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
(b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973);
(c) the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund) Act, 1952(19 of 1952);
(d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);
(e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
(f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(g) the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or
(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community,
such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
Now so far as the Clauses(a) to (f) are concerned, the Magistrate can initiate proceedings on his receiving information about the habitual involvement of the person sought to be bound down in respect of the offences enumerated in these clauses. A perusal of the complaint contents of, which have already been given in detail above, would go to show that the complaint does not show that the petitioner is a habitual offender in respect of any of the offences referred to in Section 110. All that which can be spelled out from this complaint is that one case Under Sections 451 and 325 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and was challenged. The other three reports in the Rojnamacha pertained Co the investigations of this very case and a perusal of those entries would go to show that the petitioner was not co-operating in the investigations which was pending against him. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does not come under any of the Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 110.
8. Now coming to Clause (g) of Section 110, it may be stated that clause is applicable when the person sought to be bound down is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community.
9. Of course, it is mentioned in these reports that people generally state that the petitioner was of bad character and used to raise quarrels but there is no specific reference to any such accident, and on the basis of such rumour, it cannot be said that the petitioner is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. It is pertinent to note that, as already stated above, these reports in the Rojnamacha have been entered only during the course of the investigations of the F.I.R. lodged by Loonkaran and which has been referred to at No. 1 in the complaint Under Sections 411/110 Cr. P.C. It may further be mentioned that it also appears from the entries in the Rojnamacha dated 6-12-84 that the present petitioner Gopal Lal had also filed a cross F.I.R. So the net result appears to be that there was some incident between Loonkaran and the present petitioner Gopal Lal which led to the cross F.I.R. being registered and apart from this, there is no material on the record to justify the conclusion that the petitioner Gopal Lal was as desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community.
10. In these circumstances, When none of the clauses Under Section 110 were attracted, the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in initiating proceedings Under Section 110 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner.
11. Having held that the initiation of the proceedings Under Section 110 Cr. P.C. in the circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified. I am not called upon to go into the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in detail. But I do feel called upon to say that the learned Magistrate has failed to follow the procedure laid down Under Sections 111 to 114 and has proceeded almost in an arbitrary manner. When a person is sought to be proceeded against Under Section 110 Cr. P.C. and the Magistrate deems it necessary to require him to show cause why he should not be bound down, he has to make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required. Then Under Section 112 if such person is present in Court then the order passed Under Section 111 has to be read over to him and if he is not present then resort has to be made to Section 113 which requires that the Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring such person to appear or when such person is in custody, he may issue a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the Court. A warrant of arrest cannot straight away be issued unless it appears to the Magistrate upon the report of a police officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Magistrate), that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for his arrest and Section 114 requires that every summons or warrant issued Under Section 113 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made Under Section 111. Now in this case, the learned Magistrate has straight away issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner without complying with the provisions of Section 113 and in making an order Under Section 111, he has not stated the amount of the bond to be executed and term for which it is to be executed and the number and character of the sureties. The procedure is laid down in Sections 111 to 114Cr. P.C.
12. For the reasons stated above, this revision is-allowed, and the proceedings initiated by the learned Executes Magistrate by his order dated 18-1-85 are quashed.