JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. A.S. Champawat for the petitioner, Mr. Kailash Nath Joshi counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mr. Vimal Mathur, Public Prosecutor 2. The house in question belonged to Dhan Raj Kumar. By two sale deeds dated July 6, 1984 and August 21, 1984. Dhan Raj Kumar sold his house to Kesarbai wife of petitioner Madanlal. Jairam was brother of Dhan Raj Kumar who had a son named Bhagwandas and non-petitioner No. 1 is son of Bbagwandas. 3. Madanlal lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Nathdwara alleging therein that his wife Smt. Kesarbai had purchased the disputed house situated in Kumarwara Nathdwara. On the morning of October 12, 1984 she went for cleaning the bouse and found that the lock of the main Pol was broken and inside the house Heeralal non-petitioner No. 1. two other persons and three ladies were sitting. Smt. Kesarbai inquired from them as to how they were there Thereupon the ladies surrounded her and started beating her. It was stated that Heeralal and his companions had broken the lock of the house where his domestic goods were lying. They did not allow Madanlal or his wife to enter into the house. It was not known what these persons did of the goods of Madanlal and Smt. Kesarbai which was lying there. It was mentioned that Hiralal and his companions bad no right in the house. Madanlal lastly mentioned that the acts of these persons amounted to offences under sections 448, 452, 457 and 380 IPC. Upon this First Information Report the police registered a case under sections 448, 341 add 323, IPC. 4. On October 29, 1984 the Station House Officer, Nathdwara made an application to the Judicial Magistrate Nathdwara that on the First Information Report lodged by Madanlal, a case has been registered at the Police Station under Section 454, 448, 341 and 323 IPC. 4. On October 29, 1984 the Station House Officer, Nathdwara made an application to the Judicial Magistrate Nathdwara that on the First Information Report lodged by Madanlal, a case has been registered at the Police Station under Section 454, 448, 341 and 323 IPC. It was mentioned in the application made by Vijendra Vyas, SHO Police Station Nathdawara that some goods was also alleged to have been stolen from the house and that Heeralal was removing other goods It was then mentioned that there was apprehension that Heeralal had concealed himself in the house and, therefore, a search of the house may be permitted and a search warrant may be issued It may be mentioned that in the First Information Report lodged by Madanlal there was no allegation that some goods of Madanlal had been stolen from the house and nor was there any allegation that remaining goods was being removed from the house. One can only infer that Sari Vijendra Vyas S.H.O. Police Station Nathdwara mentioned these facts in the application made to the Judicial Magistrate on October 19, 1984 simply to obtain a search warrant by stating wrong facts before the Court. The Judicial Magistrate after perusing the case diary mentioned in his order that the goods alleged to have been stolen and the accused can be recovered and arrested by search of the house. He, therefore, issued a search. 5. The Station House Officer made a search on the same date and returned the warrants on October 20, 1984 with his report to the Court. The gist of the report was that the main gate of the house was towards meet and it was locked. Neighbours told that Heeralal and had put this lock. But when key of the lock was demanded from Hiralal he was not available. Father of Heeralal was also called but he told that he did not have the key. Thereupon the SHO called Sunderlal, a dealer in locks and keys and got the lock opened through Damodar Paliwal The SHO entered into the house along with Madanlal petitioner. He found that a beding was lying on the Chabutra There were three ladies sitting in the house who were wife, mother and sister of Heeralal, lock of one room was broken and in that room there were two 'Tapelis' one 'Chart', and some utensils. The3e goods were said to belong to Madanlal. He found that a beding was lying on the Chabutra There were three ladies sitting in the house who were wife, mother and sister of Heeralal, lock of one room was broken and in that room there were two 'Tapelis' one 'Chart', and some utensils. The3e goods were said to belong to Madanlal. Another room was also inspected and in that room there were 3 or 4 handis' stove and two tin which were told to belong to Heeralal. In the first floor, there was a room. Its lack was also got broken. In this room there was an attachee, 2 or 3 photos and some books which did not belong to Madanlal. In another room on the first floor there were some photos and carom board which did not belong to Madanlal. In the kitchen, there was a tin and in the Pol in the ground floor, there were two pitchers and some empty small containers. These articles were dispute disowned by Madanlal so belonging to him In the entire search of the house, no stolen articles were found The goods found were respectively handed over to Hiralal and Madanlal to whom the same belonged. 6. On November 9, 1984 the Judicial Magistrate passed in order that the Police should have kept the house in question after the search in the same State in which it was before search. On these lines an order was directed to be issued to the Station House Officer, Nathdwara. 7. Madanlal filed a revision against this order alleging that under its shield Heeralal wanted to continue his illegal possession in the house which belonged to his wife Smt. Kesar. He prayed for quashing of the order dated November 9, 1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara. The Additional Sessions Judge Rajasmand by his order dated April 13, 1984 dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.PC 8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, no notice was given by the Judicial Magistrate to the petitioner. The Additional Sessions Judge Rajasmand by his order dated April 13, 1984 dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.PC 8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, no notice was given by the Judicial Magistrate to the petitioner. It was also urged that Hiralal had no title to the house and delivering possession of the house to him amounts to a grave injustice and abuse of the process of the court The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner urged that the petitioner Madanlal had made a wrong report: to the police and in pursuance of the search warrant wanted to dispossess the non-petitioner who was in possession of the house 9. It appears that in this case the legal process was misused by the police As already stated, in the First Information Report lodged by Madanlal it was not mentioned that any theft of his goods had been committed or that his goods was being removed from the house. Despite that, the Station House Officer, Police Station Nathdwara in his application for search warrant mentioned that same goods were also alleged to have been stolen from the house and some were being removed The Judicial Magistrate was thus misled by the Station House Officer, Police Station Nathdwara Shri Vijendra Vyas. The Judicial Magistrate also did not carefully peruse the case diary and simply on what was stated by the Station House Officer ordered for the issue of the search warrant. Section 93 of the Code provides that when any Court was reason to believe that a person to whom summon or order under Section 91 or a requisition under Sub-section (1) of Section 92 has been or might be addressed will not produce the document or thing, it may issue a search warrant. Section 94 provides that if the Magistrate, after inquiry has reason to believe that any place is used for deposit or sale of the stolen property of or any objectionable article, he may issue a search warrant in order to take possession of the article which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property or objectionable article. Section 97 provides for search of persona wrongfully confined Section 98 for restoration of abducted females. Section 97 provides for search of persona wrongfully confined Section 98 for restoration of abducted females. In the instant case, there was no mention in the application made by the Station House Officer that the house in question is used for the deposit or sale of stolen property or any other objectionable articles detailed in various clauses of this section. Despite absence of such an allegation, the search warrant was issued which was clearly unwarranted and without jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of this case as mentioned above. The order of the Judicial Magistrates dated November 9, 1984 that the house in question should have been kept in the same condition after the search as it was before the search is highly misleading. He could not pass any order regarding the house. At best he could pass an order that the goods found in various rooms at the time of search would be kept in those very rooms where they were before the search. He could not say anything about the house in his order. The Judicial Magistrate was not seized with any matter concerning' the house. He was only perusing the result of the search made in pursuance of the search warrant issued by him in pursuance of the application made by the Station House Officer. Under the garb or shelter of this order none of the parties could be allowed to shield or retain possession. For that they have remedy under an ordinary law. In the light of my above view, I set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara dated November 9, 1984 end also the affirming order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated April 13, 1985. The petition is allowed accordingly.Petition allowed. *******