JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 19.5.2012 passed by the learned SDO, Merta City whereby the petitioner was issued a bailable warrant for showing cause as to why he should not be bound down for a period of one year under the provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C. and for quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint Case No.85/2012 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.O., Merta City under the provisions of Section 110 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 41/110 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in this case was absolutely unwarranted. He urged that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. He submitted that the SHO, Police Station, Merta City filed the complaint in question by mentioning that the petitioner is a quarrelsome man and is in the habit of committing various offences. It was also mentioned in the complaint that because of the criminal background of the petitioner, the general public is terrified and nobody is prepared to give evidence against the petitioner and in order to