ROBERT EDMOND NESTOR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Robert Edmond Nestor against the preliminary order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bahraich requiring him to appear in his court on a certain date. The relevant facts are that Mohammad Amin opposite-party No. 2 had moved an application for taking action against applicant and 11 others under Section 1071116, Cr.P.C. The learned S.D.M. passed a preliminary order which on being translated reads as under:- "From the application of the applicant, affidavit and F. I.R. I am satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of peace from his side. Accordingly he was ordered to appear on April 2, 1978." It is contended that the opposite party No. 2 had moved several applications one after the other for taking action against the applicant but they had been dismissed after inquiry on the finding that the applicant was a peace loving person and there was no question of any breach of peace from his side and yet on similar allegations again, action is being Laken by S.D.M. It is also contended that the order passed by the learned S.D.M. is against mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C. in this respect. Opposite party No. 2 has been personally served but he is not present. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Govt. Counsel and have gone through the record. I need not enter into merits of the allegations made by the applicant against opposite party No. 2 They could be only disposed of after inquiry in accordance with law. The second ground, however, appears to have a force. If a magistrate wanf to take action under Section 107, Cr.P.C., he has to pass an order in terms of Section 111, Cr.P.C THIS section leouires that if a magistrate deems it necessary to reauire any person to show cause under Section 107, Cr.P.C., he shall make an order in writing stating following things: - (i) Substance of the information received, (ii) The amount of the bonds to be executed, (in) The terms for which it is to be enforced, (iv) The number of sureties, if any. The order as quoted above shows that none of these things have bran incorporated therein. There is nomention of any substance of the information on the basis of which the order was being passed. Merely mentioning of the application, affidavit, or the F.I.R. is not enough. The rest of the things have not been mentioned at all. So this order is clearly defective and all proceedings initiated thereon deserve to be quashed. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The order dated March 15, 1978 (an-nexure 6 to the revision petition) is set aside. Consequently subsequent proceedings are allto quashed.