JUDGMENT 1. -Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By his impugned order dated 24.3.93 the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kota, had taken ;cognisance of the offence Under section 147, 323, 365 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the Negative Report, submitted by the police and summoned the present petitioners as accused in the case. Though the petition had been filed on behalf of all the five accused person, as summoned by the learned Magistrate, yet by order dated 10.5.93 of this court the petition was admitted in respect of the part of order relating to Abdul Karim, petitioner, only. By order dated 16.7.97 the Bench had directed that a notice be also issued to Jagannath, the informant in the case. Despite issuing the notices to him thrice, Jagannath, informant, did not appear. The case is pending for the last about four years and the record of the lower court has been requisitioned here, causing delay in the disposal of the case by the trial court. On suggestion of the learned counsel for the parties I examined the record and heard them in order to satisfy myself whether it would be necessary to near Jagannath before passing any orders in the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that it is not necessary to hear the informant Jagannath as the cognisance in the case has been taken by the learned Magistrate Under section 190 (1) (b) Cr.PC. on a police report. 3. The case, reported by Jagannath to the police, was that he had been working at the Mines of the petitioner Abdul Karim and Abdul Wahab, petitioner No. 2. Jagannath, informant, had reported that on 14.4.90 at about 8.30 or 9.00 A.M. when he had been working at another Mine of Kukda, the accused persons, as named in the complaint and which were seven in numbers including the present petitioners, reached there in a Jeep, assaulted him and kidnapped him on the ground that he was not to work at other mines as he had been advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner and his men to work at their mines. The police registered Crime No. 41 Under sections 109, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 150, 154, 155, 156, 158, 323, 365, 374 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 10,000/- by the petitioner and his men to work at their mines. The police registered Crime No. 41 Under sections 109, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 150, 154, 155, 156, 158, 323, 365, 374 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, after investigation the police came to the conclusion that no occurrence, as had been alleged in the report, had taken place and that it was a dispute between the accused persons on the one hand and Jagannath on the other regarding the advance payment of Rs. 10,000 /- by owners of the Mine to Jagannath, informant. A Final Report Under section 169 Cr.PC. was accordingly submitted. On a protest petition, having been filed before him by Jagannath, the learned Magistrate, after examining the informant Under section 200 and his witnesses Prabhulal, Sita Ram and Smt. Bajrangi Under section 202 Cr.PC. took cognisance of the offence Under sections 147, 323, 365 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act and summoned five persons, including the petitioner Abdul Karim, as accused in the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the Police report as also the statements, recorded Under section 200 and 202 Cr.PC. by the learned Magistrate before taking cognisance of the offences in the case and summoning the petitioner and other persons as accused, and pointed out that neither in the police report nor in the statements, recorded by the Magistrate, the present petitioner Abdul Karim was named either as a kidnapper of Jagannath or a person assaulting him. The learned Public Prosecutor, after having perused the statements, agreed with the learned counsel for the petitioner, on examining the statements, recorded by the learned Magistrate Under section 200 and 202 Cr.PC., I also fail to notice the name of the present petitioner as appearing in the list of the persons, who were stated to have assaulted Jagannath, informant, and kidnapped him from the Mine he was working at. In view of the fact that the police after thorough investigation had submitted a Negative Report in the present case and that the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate does not show the involvement of or connection of the present petitioner with the commission of the offence, if any, in the present case, there is no escape from taking the view the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would simply amount to abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, it is necessary to prevent such abuse to secure the ends of justice for the petitioner. That being so the impugned order is required to be set aside in so far it relates to Abdul Karim petitioner. 5. Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, though urged that once Abdul Karim, petitioner, was not involved in the commission of the offences Under section 323, 365 IPC the offence Under section 147 IPC falls and that there was no convincing evidence regarding the commission of the offence Under section 323 and/or 365 IPC as against other accused persons yet I fail to ignore the order, dated 10.5.93 as passed by this court. It would be open for other accused persons in the case to raise their objections before the learned Magistrate at or before framing of the charges against them. 6. With the above observations the impugned order is set aside, in so far it relates to Abdul Karim, petitioner, and the petition is allowed. *******