Judgment.- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Market Police Station, Secunderabad, laid information before the Revenue Divisional Officer, I Class Magistrate (Executive), Hyderabad, by way of reports that two sets of individuals, on account of animosity between them, were clashing and attacking each other and causing disturbance of the peace and gave several instances of such clashes between them from 5th May, 1971 to 23rd October, 1971 when even fighting with sticks and soda bottles were resorted to and had resulted in the registration of certain cases against them; and further stated that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace and disturbance of public tranquillity as both parties were indulging in violent acts and requested that they be bound over under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. Along with this he also further requested that interim bonds may be obtained from them under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Thereupon the Magistrate issued notices to each group under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, directing them to show cause why they should not be ordered to furnish a personal bond for Rs. 1,000 each with one surety for like sum for keeping the peace for one year under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. In the same order he further directed them to show cause why they should not be directed to furnish a personal bond for Rs. 1,000 each with one surety for like sum for keeping peace till the disposal of the case under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code. 3. As against that order, while one of the parties has come directly to this Court and filed Criminal R.C. No. 661 of 1971 under sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, and other group has come forward with a petition under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the order of the Magistrate. 4. The contention of both the parties here is however the same that is, that the Magistrate had erred in directing the parties to execute the interim bonds under section 117(3) while issuing the notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 4. The contention of both the parties here is however the same that is, that the Magistrate had erred in directing the parties to execute the interim bonds under section 117(3) while issuing the notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. In Jangir Singh v. State1, where on the information furnished to the Magistrate, he directed arrest of the respondents and when they were produced asked them to execute interim bonds for keeping the peace under section 117(3), it was held that the order under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, must precede any step taken under section 117, Criminal Procedure Code, that the condition is mandatory and where it has been completely overlooked, the order for interim security under section 117(3) is premature and illegal. The present case is not one of that type. Here, the Magistrate purported to issue a notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, and his order in fact begins by saying that it is a notice issued under that section. As per the provisions of section 107 and also section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, he has directed them to show cause why they should not be ordered to furnish personal bonds with one surety for keeping peace for one year. To this extent, this order cannot be challenged. What is contended is that a further direction under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, to furnish interim bonds for keeping peace until the disposal of the case is wrong, as even the respondents had not appeared and the enquiry had not commenced. This contention finds support in Rame Gowda v. State of Mysore,1 Prabhakar Nath v. District Magistrate2and Purushotham v. State3. It is based on the reasoning that only after the parties have appeared in Court on the notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, and the Magistrate proceeds to enquire into the matter and finds that a case of emergency is made out, that he can direct the execution of the interim bonds and it is not permissible to the Magistrate to call upon the person to execute interim bond before the enquiry starts as a part of an order under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, he cannot simultaneously pass an order under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code. 5. 5. It should, however, not be forgotten that there is a certain urgency in these matters of an impending breach of the peace and expeditious and not leisurely action is required. The mischief that is sought to be avoided is breach of the peace and the object that is sought to be achieved is preserving public tranquillity, when an action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, is sought. It can be noticed that under the proviso to section 114, Criminal Procedure Code, even without the issue of summons to the respondents, a warrant for his arrest can be issued, provided it appears to the Magistrate, upon the report of the Police Officer or upon other information, that there is reason for fear of commission of any breach of peace and such breach of peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person and such a drastic action is contemplated even before the appearance of the person in the interests of preserving the peace. I cannot see, on a parity of reasoning, why the respondents should not be asked to furnish interim bonds if on the report of the Police Officer or other information received the Magistrate is satisfied that such an action is called for as a provisional measure during the pendency of the enquiry. Merely issuing a notice and summons and waiting for them may thwart the very object of taking speedy steps to secure the peace, as parties may evade summons and notices and in the intervening period any amount of mischief can be done. It may be noticed that section 117(3) also says that pending the completion of the enquiry under sub-section (1), action may be taken for securing interim bonds. This shows that at any point of time before the commencement of the enquiry, any action can be taken and not after the respondents appear alone. However, if the order, directing that the interim bond should be executed, is to be issued only after the respondents appear, there seems to be no further advantage except that the respondents could be questioned as to the information furnished. However, if the order, directing that the interim bond should be executed, is to be issued only after the respondents appear, there seems to be no further advantage except that the respondents could be questioned as to the information furnished. But if the Magistrate is satisfied on the information placed that there is a threat of imminent breach of the peace, there is no reason why he should not call for interim bonds under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, also, while issuing notice under section 112, as by the issue of such notice itself he is initiating the proceedings and starting an enquiry. 6. However, in the present case, the Sub-Inspector of Police had. submitted a report before the Magistrate. In that report he merely stated therein that both the parties may indulge in violent acts at any time and therefore, action under section 117(3) also may be taken. The facts stated do not call for such an immediate action, though the prior incident cited show that there is a likelihood of breach of the peace recurring. There is however no force in the contention that the instances cited do not at all call for action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. There is also no force in the further contention that as the notice under section 117(3) for furnishing the interim bond is part of the notice under section 112, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Therefore, that part of the order relating to the furnishing of interim bonds under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is set aside. The Magistrate, after the appearance of the respondents, will take further steps under section 117(3) if he is satisfied that such action is called for. 7. In the result, both the Crl.R.C. No. 661 of 1971 and Crl.M.P. No. 2026 of 1971 are allowed in part. A.B.K. ----- Revisions allowed in part.