JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the original record of the case. 2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10.7.1994 passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate (Head Qtr.) 5 Jodhpur passed in Criminal case No. 125/94, State v. Purkha Ram for the offence under Section 110. Cr.PC. 3. It appears that on the basis of a complaint filed by the Station House Officer of Police Station Mathania, the Additional City Magistrate (H. Qtr.) Mathania passed the impugned order dated 10.7.1994, whereby he directed the petitioner to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 3,000/- and personal bond in the like amount for keeping good behaviour for a period of six months and recorded his plea after reading over the allegations made against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was Government employee arid was holding the post of Head Master on the date of impugned order and he was aged 56 years and he has been unnecessarily harassed by passing of the impugned order purported to have been passed under Section 110 Cr.PC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 110 Cr.RC. amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. He has, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the order dated 10.7.1994 passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate (H. Qtr.) Jodhpur be quashed and set-aside. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order dated 10.7.1994. According to him, the petitioner was a notorious person who had terrorised the citizens of the locality by various acts and criminal cases were also instituted against him and therefore, the impugned order was justified as the case of the petitioner fell within the scope of Clause (e) of Section 110 Cr.PC. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. reads : SECURITY FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR FROM HABITUAL OFFENDERS: "When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person. (a)............. (b)............. (c)............. (d)............. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. reads : SECURITY FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR FROM HABITUAL OFFENDERS: "When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person. (a)............. (b)............. (c)............. (d)............. (e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or, (f)............ (g)............ such Magistrate may in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years. as the Magistrate thinks fit. 7. A bare reading of section 110(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code shows that for the purpose of Clause (e), the person against whom the complaint is made must be shown to be habitually commits or attempts to commit or abates the commission of offence involving the breach of peace. This Clause contemplates several offences involving the breach of peace. A single offence of breach of peace does not appear to attack the provisions of Clause (e) of Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the instant case, the impugned order dated 10.7.1994 shows that two criminal cases (i) 45 No. 83/93 under Sections 341 & 323 and (ii) 82/94 under Sections 447, 341 & 374 IPC was registered against the petitioner. None of these cases involve the breach of peace contemplated Clause (e) of Section 110 Cr.P.C. Neither the order dated 10.7.1994 nor the complaint by the S.H.O. P.S. Mathania, contains particulars of those acts of omissions of the accused bring his case within the scope of Clause (e) of Section 110 Cr.P.C. 8. I am, therefore, satisfied that on the basis of record assuring that the facts made in the complaint filed by the S.H.O. of P.S. Mathania were correct, no case for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 110(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code is made out. Consequently, it must be held that the order dated 10.7.1994 passed by the learned Addl. City Magistrate (H. Qtr.) Jodhpur in this case was without jurisdiction and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. It deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set-asidePetition allowed. *******