( 1 ) THE petitioner before this Court is the first party in the proceeding taken under S. 145 Cr. P. C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tumkur. Respondents 1 and 2 belong to the second party in the said proceedings. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gubbi, on 30-12-1969 filed an F. I. R. and sent a report that he apprehended breach of peace in respect of four acres of land in S. No. 130 of Gangasandra village. The learned Magistrate thereafter passed a preliminary order on 5-1-1970 and after holding an inquiry he passed the final order dated 8-7-70. This order passed by the learned Magistrate is challenged in this revision petition. ( 2 ) IN the said final order, the learned Magistrate held that both the parties 1 and 2 were not in possession of the disputed land, but the Government was in possession of this land. He directed that the proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. be dropped and the Tahsildar, who was directed to take possession of the disputed land was to continue as receiver. After passing the said order, the learned Magistrate further held that there was likelihood of the breach of peace and the proceedings should be converted into one under S. 107 Cr. P. C. and the parties should be directed to show cause as to why they should not be required to execute a bond with sureties for keeping peace for one year. This order passed by the learned Magistrate is challenged in this revision petition. ( 3 ) SRI S. Vijaya Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (1st party) has contended that the learned Magistrate has no power to convert the proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. to one under S. 107 cr. P. C. He argues that the order of the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings on the ground that both the parties 1 and 2 are not in possession of the land and continuing the Tahsildar as receiver, is illegal. He contends that in a situation like that, the learned Magistrate should have proceeded under S. 146 (1) Cr. P. C. He argues that the order of the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings on the ground that both the parties 1 and 2 are not in possession of the land and continuing the Tahsildar as receiver, is illegal. He contends that in a situation like that, the learned Magistrate should have proceeded under S. 146 (1) Cr. P. C. The said section states that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in possession of the disputed land, he should draw up a statement of facts of the case and forward the record of the proceedings to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any, and which of the parties was in possession of the subject matter of the dispute on the date of the order as explained in sub-sec. (4) of S. 145 Cr. P. C. It is also contended that S. 107 Cr. P. C. proceedings for keeping the peace can be taken only if there is definite information before the Magistrate that any person is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity. It is also contended that before asking the parties to show cause why they should not execute bond under S. 107 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate is bound to pass an order under S. 112 Cr. P. C. setting forth the substance of the information received. It is the duty of the Magistrate in the order passed under S. 112 Cr. P. C. to set out the definite information and particulars which make him think that the parties are likely to commit breach of the peace. It is pointed out that in the instant case, the learned Magistrate has not passed any such order under S. 112 Cr. P. C. and as such, he has no jurisdiction to take proceedings or pass an order under S. 107 Cr. P. C. against the parties. ( 4 ) SRI D. Puttaswamy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second party, supported the contentions urged by Sri S. Vijaya Shankar. He argues that in the instant case, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under S. 107 Cr. P. C. It is also contended that this is a fit case where the learned Magistrate should have made a reference to the Civil Court under S. 146 (1) Cr. He argues that in the instant case, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under S. 107 Cr. P. C. It is also contended that this is a fit case where the learned Magistrate should have made a reference to the Civil Court under S. 146 (1) Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) S. 107 Cr. P. C. states that whenever a Sub-Divisional Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit any breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity the Magistrate if in his opinion there was sufficient ground for proceeding may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with surety for keeping peace for a period not exceeding one year. Before the Magistrate initiates proceedings under S. 107 Cr. P. C. it is necessary that he must have information before him that the person is likely to commit breach of the peace. It is also clear from S. 112 Cr. P. C. that when a Magistrate acting under s. 107 Cr. P. C. deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, 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. No order under S. 112 Cr. P. C. seems to have been passed by the learned Magistrate. It is obligatory under S. 114 Cr. P. C. that whenever a summons is issued to a party, the same shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under S. 112, cr. P. C. and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons. ( 6 ) THIS Court, in a number of decisions, has laid down that information of the kind mentioned in S. 107 Cr. P. C. must be of a clear and definite kind directly affecting the person against whom the process is issued and it should give definite facts and details so that it may afford sufficient notice to the person to meet those charges. In Doddegowda v. State of Mysore, (1966) 1 Mys. L. J. 260 and in Criminal Revision Petition 4 of 1970, Cr. In Doddegowda v. State of Mysore, (1966) 1 Mys. L. J. 260 and in Criminal Revision Petition 4 of 1970, Cr. R. P. 4 of 1970, this Court has laid down the above proposition of law. In the instant case, no information has at all been furnished as required by S. 107, Cr. P. C. to the parties. Unless information which is clear and of definite kind which would give sufficient notice to them to meet the charge is furnished no proceedings can be continued. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate initiating proceedings under S. 107 Cr. P. C. against the parties 1 and 2 is not in accordance with law and has to be set aside and I do so accordingly. ( 7 ) THERE is also force in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first party and the second party that in the instant case the learned Magistrate was not justified in dropping the proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. particularly when he held "danger of the breach of the peace continued. In a case where the Magistrate is of opinion that none of the parties was in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order, the Magistrate should have acted as laid down by s. 146 Cr. P. C. S. 146 Cr. P. C. states that if the Magistrate is of opinion that none of the parties was in possession of the disputed land, he may attach the same and draw up a statement of facts of the case and forward the records of the proceedings to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute on the date of the order as explained in sub-sec. (4) of S. 145 Cr. P. C. and he should direct the party to appear before the Civil Court on the date so fixed by him. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I allow this revision petition, and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate converting the proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. into one S. 107 Cr. P. C. and he should direct the party to appear before the Civil Court on the date so fixed by him. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I allow this revision petition, and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate converting the proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. into one S. 107 Cr. P. C. , and directing the first and the second parties to show cause why they should not execute the bond with sureties for keeping the peace for one year. I also set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. I direct the learned Magistrate to proceed under s. 146 Cr. P. C. as mentioned above. --- *** --- .