IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49733 of 2007 SMT. GEETA RANI SAHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 28.02.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead and add the names of opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner questions the order, initiating proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. dated 22.5.2007 as affirmed by the revisional court, on 31.8.2007, in Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first party in the proceeding was the State itself. He makes a simple submission that the notice for initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was not in compliance of the statutory requirements of Section 111 of the Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, it does not set forth the substance of the information received. Learned counsel for the State submits from the impugned order, the order of the State, that there was apprehension of breach of peace by acts of the petitioner. This Court is satisfied that on the face of the order, initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., it does not satisfy the statutory requirement of Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Munger was required, albeit by a brief reasoning to set forth the substance of the order, in writing setting the ground on which breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility was apprehended. In absence of the same, the order becomes bad. The impugned order dated 26.5.2007 and 31.8.2007 are accordingly set aside. The application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)