DAYA RAM S Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON July 31, 1984, Sub -Inspector Dule Ram, Station House Officer of Police Station Loharu, submitted a report against the petitioner Daya Ram under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code') in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Loharu, (Annexure P. 1) in which it was alleged that the petitioner had quarrelled with one Mohan Lal on March 12, 1982 as well as on March 22, 1982 regarding which he was challaned -under sections 107 and 151 of the Code and that he was challaned under these sections on August 27, 1982 on a complaint of Dalu Ram. Then on July 19, 1984 he quarrelled with Mahabir Singh and Sat Narain It was prayed that proceedings under section 110 of the Code be taken against the petitioner. Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, vide the two orders dated July 31, 1984 (Annexures P. 2 and P. 3) ordered that the petitioner be challaned under section 110(e) of the Code and that he should execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - for a period of one year with one surety in the like amount for good behaviour. The validity of these orders of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition under section 482 of the Code.

(2.) THE petitioner's counsel has placed on the record a copy of order dated May 10, 1993 of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, which shows that h report was earlier made by the former Station House Officer of Police Station Loharu on November 23, 1982 before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, praying that proceedings be taken against the petitioner under section 110 of the Code. The grounds on which this prayer was made were that the petitioner had quarrelled with Mohan Lal on March 12, 1982 and March 22,1982 for which he was challaned under sections 107 and 151 of the Code and that he had also quarrelled with Dalu Ram on August 27, 1982 which had also led to the filing of the challan under the said sections against him. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, on appraisal of evidence produced before him came to the conclusion that no case under section 110 of the Code was made out against the petitioner. In pursuance of this finding the petitioner was discharged. The present case is also based on the same incidents. Only one more incident has been added by stating that on July 19, 1984 the petitioner had quarrelled with Mahabir Singh and Sat Narain. Manifestly, the ground on which the earlier report under section 110 of the Code was filed and which were found inadequate to proceed against the petitioner under section 110 of the Code by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, vide his order dated May 10, 1983, cannot be reagitated in the present proceedings which leaves only one incident dated July 19, 1984 when the petitioner is alleged to have quarrelled with Mahabir Singh and Sat Narain. On this single incident proceedings under section 110(e) of the Code cannot be initiated against the petitioner. The provisions of section 110 (c) of the Code are as follows : 110(e) "When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who.

(3.) IT cannot be said that on account of the aforesaid single incident the petitioner can be considered to be a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit offences involving breach of the peace. In my view, therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 110 of the Code against the petitioner on the basis of the report (Annexure P. 1) would amount to the abuse of process of Court.