JUDGMENT Petitioner has challenged a notice dated 4 June 2016 issued under section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, whereby petitioner has been called upon to appear before the concerned Magistrate on 17 June 2016 at 10.00 AM. 2. It is argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No.146 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Case Crime No.128 of 2014 under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the Beat Report No.18 dated 18 May 2016 could not have been relied upon inasmuch as this report bears a date of 18 May 2016 whereas the report of Station House Officer concerned itself is dated 5 May 2016. 3. The submission is opposed by learned Additional Government Advocate, who relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jainendra @ Chhotu Singh vs. State of U.P. and others: 2007 (57) ACC 791, which has subsequently been followed by this Court in various cases. 4. Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that so far as petitioner's objection with regard to Beat Report No.18 dated 18 May 2016 is concerned, such report admittedly was on record before the Magistrate concerned when he issued notice on 4 June 2016. If on the date of issuance of notice material did exist on record, this Court would not be inclined to examine as to on what date Station House Office has submitted report since on the date of taking of cognizance such material was available on record. There are other First Information Reports registered against the petitioner and the investigation is stated to be pending. 5. It was open for the petitioner to have raised all such objections, to the notice under challenge, before the Magistrate concerned, at the first instance, particularly as various issues of facts were being raised. No such objection is shown to have been raised before the Magistrate. The notice otherwise has not been shown to be in excess of jurisdiction. This Court would, therefore, not be inclined to examine validity of the notice on the factual grounds, as are urged before this Court, at the first instance. 6. No good ground, therefore, has been made out to interfere with the notice. The notice otherwise has not been shown to be in excess of jurisdiction. This Court would, therefore, not be inclined to examine validity of the notice on the factual grounds, as are urged before this Court, at the first instance. 6. No good ground, therefore, has been made out to interfere with the notice. However, in case no final orders have yet been passed, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise all such questions as he intends to raise against the notice, by way of reply, within three days from today, and the authority concerned shall examine the same, in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.