This is an application for quashment of the proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. At present pending in the Court of the learned S. D. M., Matli.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the S. H. O. Of P. S. Pangrio had filed a complaint on 17th May, 1976 against the petitioner and two others alleging that they are habitual thieves, receivers of Bhung money by habit and receiver/disposer of stolen property. It is further alleged that they are harbourers of thieves and the thieves of far of places visit them. They are so desperate and dangerous that their being at large, without security, is hazardous to the community.
3. On receipt of the Police complaint the learned S. D. M., Math passed the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. On the same day (17th May. 1976) and remanded the petitioner and others to custody.
During the pendency of the proceedings, statements of four witnesses were recorded. During the hearing of this petition, notices, were issued to the respondents 2 and 3 which could not be served on them as they had shifted from their original places and had gone away to other places, where they were not likely to be served in the near future. The learned counsel had moved an application for dropping them, as respondents in this application, which was allowed by the order dated 11th March, 1978.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel Syed Madad Ali Shah that the entire proceedings instituted against the petitioner, under section 110 Cr. P. C. Are bad in law, in as much as, the cognizance taken by the trial Court of the acts alleged to the police complaint, is illegal. The learned counsel has further submitted that no specific instances of overt act committed by the petitioner, in which he was involved or challaned or convicted, are mentioned in the complaint. It is pointed out, by the learned counsel, that the police complaint consists of only general and vague allegations, which are reproduced from the provisions of section 110 Cr. P. C. And appear to have been copied from there. While referring to the evidence of the witnesses, it is contended that their testimony is also of a general nature and does not make out any specific instances of criminal acts against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed, by the learned counsel, on the case of Mehar Khan v. State (1975 P Cr. L J 257).
5. I have heard the learned counsel Syed Madad Ali Shah and Mr. A. S. Shaikh, learned Additional A.- G. I have also persued the police complaint and the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. Passed by the learned S. D. M., Math. It is true that the police complaint, as well as, evidence of witnesses recorded, speak of particulars, which comprise of general and vague allegations. No specific particulars or instances have been mentioned in the police complaint. It is also correct that on the basis of the police complaint, on the very day, the learned S. D. M. Had passed the order under section 112, Cr. P.
C. Requiring the petitioner to show cause, why he should not be ordered to execute a bond. The petitioner was remanded to custody and the sureties offered by him were not accepted, The petitioner was, however, released on bail by this Court on 7th June, 1976. The perusal of the police complaint and the order under section 112 Cr. P. C. Passed by the learned S. D. M., show that the facts alleged against the petitioner, are stereo typed and appeared to have been copies from section 110 (a) (b) (c) and (f) of Cr. P. C. Legally, it is correct that evidence of general reputation is admissible in proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. But as has often been held by this Court in several cases, that such evidence must be based on sound foundation, comprising of specific instances of overt acts, committed by the persons facing proceedings under section 110 Cr. P. C.
That they must be shown that such persons, involved in cases, were challenged and were adjudged as guilty. In the instant case, no particulars have been mentioned in the police complaint, disclosing the time and place, where the alleged acts, as alleged, had been committed.
Though several other points have been urged by the learned counsel, but it would suffice to allow this petition on the ground that the police complaint appears to contain general and vague allegations and the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 112, Cr. P. C. Appears to be mechanical and stereotyped. The learned S. D. M. Does not seem to have applied his mind to the facts of the case before passing the said order.
The proceedings against the petitioner pending in the Court of the S. D. M. Math amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and are accordingly quashed.