1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2009 Ali Murtuza Shaikh & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. Dilip Suryawanshi & State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. Mr. Amin Solkar, for the Petitioners. Ms. S.V. Gajre, APP for State/Respondent. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the show cause notices issued in proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter stated as “said Code”). 2 The challenge in the petition is on the ground of illegality. Therefore, this Court had called upon the learned APP to produce the file of proceeding. Perusal of the file shows that on 28th January, 2009 the Senior Inspector of 2 Police, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai submitted a proposal to the Special Executive Magistrate for initiating proceeding against the petitioners. 3 Section 110 of the said Code provides that if an Executive Magistrate receives information, he may, in the manner thereafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour. Thus, after receiving information, Executive Magistrate is required to act in accordance with the section 111 of the said Code, before issuing show cause notice or a summons. Section 111 of the said Code provides that when a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110 of the Code deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. 4 The requirement of section 114 of the said Code is that a copy of order passed under Section 111 of the said Code has to be served to the person concerned alongwith a summons under section 113 of the said Code. 5 In the present case, learned APP has invited my 3 attention to the order dated 28th January, 2009 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate purporting to be an order under section 111 of the said Code. The said order merely records that as Senior Inspector of Police of Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai has submitted a proposal for initiating the proceedings against the petitioners, a notice should be issued to them. Section 111 of the said Code contemplates an application of mind on the part of the learned Executive Magistrate before deciding to initiate the proceedings and therefore, said section specifically says that apart from the other details, the order must set forth the substance of the information received. A chapter proceeding cannot be initiated merely because there is a proposal submitted by the police and therefore, the legislature has provided that initiation of proceeding must be preceded by an order under section 111 of the said Code. The Executive Magistrate cannot mechanically initiate the proceedings. 6 In the present case, the order purportedly passed under section 111 of the said Code shows complete non application of mind. The said order is not in accordance with the requirement of the statute. The order is a cryptic order which does not set out the substance of information received. Therefore, further proceedings initiated on the basis of such order are illegal. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: 4 The impugned show cause notices are quashed and set aside and the proceedings are ordered to be dropped. JUDGE