N.C. SHARMA, J.—Heard Mr. T.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, Dhanraj Kumar sold his house to Kesarbai wife of petitioner Madanlal. Jairam was brother of Dhanraj Kumar who had a son named Bhagwandas and non petitioner No. 1 is son of Bhagwan das. 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 house 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 bouse 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 had 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 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 I.P.C. It was mentioned in the application made by Vijendra Vyas, S.H.O. Police Station Nathdwara that some goods were 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 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 Shri 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 warrant. 5. The Station House Officer, issued a search on warrant 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 west and it was locked. Neighbours told that Heeralal 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 S.H.O. called Sunder Lal a dealer in Socks and keys and got the lock opened through Damodar Paliwal. The S.H.O. entered into the house along with Madanlal petitioner. He found that a beding was lying on 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 tamelis one chari. and some utensils. These 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 tins which were told to belong to Heeralal. In the first floor, there was a room. Its lock was also got broken. and some utensils. These 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 tins which were told to belong to Heeralal. In the first floor, there was a room. Its lock 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 anothe-room on the first floor there were some photos and a 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 tow pitchers and some empty small containers. These articles were disput downed 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 an order that the notice should have kept the house in question after the March in the same Sate 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 Rajsamand by his order dated April 13, 1984 dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present application under section 482 Cr. P.C. 8 It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passins 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 disposess 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. 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 disposess 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 some 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 has reason to believe that a person to whom summon or order under sec. 91 or a requisition under sub-sec (1) of sec 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 persons 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 issued which was clearly unwarranted and without jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of this case as mentioned above. Despite absence of such an allegation, the search warrant issued which was clearly unwarranted and without jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of this case as mentioned above. The order of the Judicial Magistrate 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 recording 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 shalter 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 and also the affirming order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated April 13, 1985. The petition is allowed accordingly.