A person cannot be treated as a habitual offender and asked to furnish a bond of good behaviour without any justifiable cause or ground, as it affects their liberty and social status in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.

1. By the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has challenged the history sheet opened in his name at Police Station, Merta City and for seeking deletion of requisite entry from Surveillance Register maintained at the said police station. Petitioner has also craved for annulment of entire criminal proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 290/2014 - State Vs. Hari Prakash, pending before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Merta, District Nagaur (for short, 'learned Executive Magistrate') and order dated 28.08.2014 passed in the case by learned Executive Magistrate.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that SHO, Police Station, Merta City submitted a complaint dated 27th of August 2014 before learned Executive Magistrate under Section 110 Cr.P.C. stating, inter-alia, therein that petitioner is a notorious person in habit of committing offences and his criminal activities are increasing day by day as such for public safety and to curb his illegal activities it is necessary to restrain him. The complaint also mentions the details of criminal cases launched against the petitioner including details the two cases in which he is acquitted and one pending case before ACJM Court, Merta. Highlighting the criminal activities of the petitioner, it is pleaded in the complaint that it is desirable to bound the petitioner by directing him to execute heavy bond and sureties for maintaining peace and good behaviour. Taking cognizance of the complaint, learned Executive Magistrate issued bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- against the petitioner for maintaining peace and tranquility for a period of one year and thereupon, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking inherent powers of this Court.

3. For impugning action of the respondent, essentially, the petitioner has pleaded that initiation of proceeding against him is a glaring example of abuse of process of the Court, inasmuch as, the complaint is not satisfying the requirements envisaged under Section 2(a) of the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953 (for short, 'Act of 1953'). It is also urged in the petition that the Executive Magistrate has acted mechanically without examining the materials available on record and recorded its satisfaction about fulfillment of the requirements for initiation of proceeding under Section 110 Cr.P.C.

4. On behalf of State, reply to the petition is filed reiterating the contents/insinuations of the complaint for justifying the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. In the return, respondent has asserted with full emphasis that the SHO concerned while laying complaint before the learned Executive Magistrate produced umpteen material to highlight the conduct of petitioner and his alleged criminal activities so as to brand him a habitual offender.

5. The details about the cases registered against the petitioner and the outcome/status of these cases as incorporated in the complaint dated 27.08.2014 reads as under:-

Øal	eqdnek u0 rkjh[k	vijk/k /kkjk	Fkkuk	urhtk iqfyl	urhtk U;k;ky;
1-	180@8&9&1996	448] 323@34 Hkknl	esM+rkflVh	pktZ ‘khV u0 92@27&9&1996 /kkjk 448] 323@34 Hkknl	ts,Q u0 122@96 ,e ts,e dksVZ esM+rkflVh ds vuqlkj fnukad 29&10&98 dks cjh fd;k x;
2-	181@8&9&1996	448] 323@34 Hkknl	esM+rkflVh	pktZ ‘khV u0 93@27&9&1996 /kkjk 448] 323@34 Hkknl 448] 323@34 Hkknl	ts,Q u0 57@96 ,e ts,e dksVZ esM+rkflVh ds vuqlkj fnukad 21&1&99 dks cjh fd;k x;
3-	181@7&7&2011	203 u0 ik0 ,DV o 3 ih Mh ih ,DV	esM+rkflVh	pktZ ‘khV u0 224@21&12&2011	ts0 u0 50@2012 ,lh ts ,e dksVZ esa tSj Vªk;y

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials