Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 24-10-2007 and the notice dated 18-12-2007 issued against the applicant in Case No. 1 of 2008 - State v. Har Charan, under Section 110(g), Cr.P.C., Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State at the stage of hearing on admission of this application. Since the point involved in the matter is legal one I am deciding it at this stage on merits with the consent of the parties without calling for any counter-affidavit or rejoinder affidavit. Since these proceedings have been drawn on the report of the S.O. of P.S. Barsana, District Mathura against the applicant and since Smt. Babita opposite party No. 2 is not a party in the above case, no notice is being issued to her.

3. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that on 18-12-2007, Smt. Ritu Sharma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura issued a notice under Section 111, Cr.P.C. for drawing proceedings against the applicant under Section 110 (g) Cr. P.C. It is a notice issued on a cyclostyled proforma and in its para 1, the contents of Section 110 (g), Cr.P.C. have been reproduced. There is reference of the report of S.O. of P.S. Barsana dated 24-10-2007 against applicant Har Charan at its top, and then it has been stated in this cyclostyled notice that Har Charan is a criminal and he is involved in antisocial activities and on account of his fear and terror nobody was ready to adduce evidence against him. He can do any untoward incident which may result into breach of peace. So a notice was given to him to appear before the Court on 28-1-2008 and show cause as to why he should not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two surety bonds of the like amount for maintaining peace for three years. The grounds on the basis of which the above conclusion was drawn that he was so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security is hazardous to the community have not been mentioned in this notice and there is only a reference of the report of the S.O, P.S. Barsana, dated 24-10-2007 in support of the above allegation.

4. A copy of the above report dated 24-10-2007 has been filed as Annexure 6 to the application and there is again a repetition of the requirements of Section 110 (g), Cr.P.C. and at its bottom in the column of criminal history of the applicant, there is reference of Case Crime No. 264 of 2007 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 452, I.P.C. P.S. Barsana against the applicant.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the aforesaid case crime 264 of 2007, originally N.C.R. No. 54 of 2007 was registered on the report of Smt. Babita against Vijai Singh, Gopi Chandra, Smt. Leela and Smt. Somwati under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. in respect of the incident which had allegedly taken place on 29-6-2007 at 3.30 p.m. This N.C.R. was registered against the above-named accused of that case on 29-6-2007 at 6.30 p.m. Learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that the name of present applicant-Har Charan does not find place in this N.C.R. as an accused, and the allegation in the above F.I.R. is that Smt. Babita had gone to these accused persons to enquire about her husband, and then all these above-named four accused persons had beaten her by kicks, fists, lathi, Danda, and had abused her.

6. It further appears that after the lapse of four days, Smt. Babita moved another application before the S.O., Barsana on 3-7-2007 in which she stated that on 29-6-2007 an incident of maar peet had taken place with her but in that incident Vijai Singh, Gopi Chandra, Smt. Leela and Smt. Somwati (named in the above F.I.R.) had not participated, and she had lodged this wrong report against them on account of being perplexed. She stated that a