IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.02.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.11867 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007 1. Vasudevan 2. Sridhar 3. Ramu 4. Arul 5. Senthilkumar 6. Devandran 7. Rajendran 8. Ravi 9. Rasappan 10.Sarangabani 11.Ramanujam 12.Aruldoss 13.Sakthivel 14.Karunanidhi 15.Pazhanivel 16.Baskar ... Petitioners. Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police Bhuvanagiri Police Station ... Respondent. (Cr. No. 62 of 2007) Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records in M.C. No. 15 of 2007 dated 11.04.2007 on the file of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr. K.V. Sridharan For Respondent : Mr. N. Kumanan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R This petition seeks to quash the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram passed in M.C. No. 15 of 2007 dated 11.04.2007 whereunder the petitioners were required to appear before him and explain why they should not be required to execute a personal bond and provide securities for keeping peace for a period of one year. Such order of the learned Magistrate is under challenge on the ground that wrongful conduct attributed to the petitioners relating to one solitary incident and the same could not be reason enough for the respondent to take recourse to Section 107 Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the decision reported in "1984 L.W.(Cri) (Baskaran Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi" wherein, on such ground, this Court had quashed the proceedings of the Executive Magistrate. In the instant case, the order under challenge reflects repeated conduct in a particular manner, which could be harmful to the maintenance of peace and the public tranquility. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel relying on the said decision, is rejected. 2. However, the next contention of the learned counsel and on reliance on the decision of this Court in ("1984 L.W.(Cri) Pg.284) in K.V. Shanmugam V. State, wherein it has been held as follows deserves acceptance: "A Study of the several Sections, (Ss. 107 to 122, Crl.P.C.) clearly shows that as soon as information is laid before a Magistrate, he has to exercise his Magisterial powers and take action against the person or persons against whom information has been laid. Such action, commencing from the issuing of an order to furnish security under S.117 or an order of discharge under S.118 has to be performed in the manner laid by the Code, because the Magistrate exercises at each stage his Magisterial powers under the Code. When the matter is viewed in that perspective, it will be clear that a notice issued under S.111 has to satisfy a double test. The first is that the notice must furnish all the information which is laid against a person or persons, and secondly, before issuing a notice, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the situation calls for the issuing of a show cause order. No doubt, S.112 stipulates that when a person in respect of whom an order is made is present in Court, the order shall be read over to him, or if he so desires the substance thereof shall be explained to him. But, this does not mean that the initial notice or order need not contain the substance of the information. What has to be read over or explained to a person under S.112 can only be the contents of an order under S.111 and not something which is not incorporated in the said order. 4. A conspectus of the several Sections makes it abundantly clear that even at the outset, a comprehensive order has to be passed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and that order should contain all the details of the information laid against a person or persons. The reason for the Legislature having given such a direction is not far off to see. Anyone, who is directed by an order under S.111 to appear in court and show cause why proceedings should not be taken against him, should know what is the information laid against him and what sort of repudiation he should make". 3. A reading of the order under challenge reveals that it contains absolutely no particulars of the wrong alleged against the petitioners herein. Hence, following the decision above referred, this Court would quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 15 of 2007 dated 11.04.2007 on the file of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ar To 1. Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram 2. The Inspector of Police Bhuvanagiri Police Station 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras +1 CC to Mr.K.V.Sridharan, Advocate, Sr.13124 Crl.O.P.No.11867 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007 TM (CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/