In order to implicate a person in the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C., there has to be material on the record of the case to show that a person falls in seven categories referred to in the said provision.

1. - 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 S.D.O., 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 S.H.O., 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 curtail his criminal activities, the petitioner should be bound down under the said provision. The S.H.O. also mentioned that the petitioner is a Mafia and history sheeter of the police station and thus, he should be bound down under Section 110 Cr.P.C.

4. He contended that three criminal cases referred to in the complaint claimed to have been registered against the petitioner, have been made the basis of the complaint. He pointed out that in all the three cases which were registered against the petitioner long ago, the petitioner has been exonerated/acquitted except for one case being Criminal Case No.162/1997 wherein the petitioner was saddled with a minor fine. Learned counsel has annexed the copy of a judgment dated 16.1.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta in the case registered against the petitioner under the Excise Act in 2003 arising out of the FIR No.53/2003. In the said case, the petitioner was acquitted. It is further submitted that the judgments of the other two cases could not be procured because the files had been weeded out but it is urged that the petitioner has been acquitted in one of the two cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus urged that the petitioner is neither a habitual offender nor a history sheeter so as to justify the continuance of the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. against him. He has also placed on record a copy of the medical certificate issued by the Institution of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, as per which the petitioner was subjected to a kidney transplant in the year 2005.

5. A reply to the misc. petition has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the reply, it has been claimed that three criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and thus, he is a habitual offender and, therefore, the opening of the history sheet as well as the initiation of the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. against him are justified.

6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a list of the cases registered against the petitioner till date along with the reply. In the list, it has been clearly mentioned that out of the three total criminal cases registered against the petitioner till date, he was acquitted in two, whilst in one case involving offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC registered in 1995, the petitioner was convicted on 10.9.1997.

8. After going through the contents of the reply, it is evident that except for the three cases detailed in the reply, there is no material on the record of the case by which branding the petitioner as habitual offender, can be justified. The allegations levelled in the complaint are g