S. P. Sinha, J. Both these applications arise out of the same order under which proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) has been drawn up against the petitioners in both the cases and they have been asked to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds of a certain amount for keeping the peace for a period of one year. Both these petitions have been heard together and this order will govern both of them. 2. The petitioners in criminal miscellaneous 6 of 1972 have been described in the show cause notice as first party. The petitioners in criminal revision 2645 of 1971 have been described in that notice as second party. 3. The contention raised in both these applications is that the proceeding under section 107 of the Code ought to be quashed against them because from the notice no specific overt Act, is discernible against any of the petitioners. In other words, there is no due compliance with the terms of section 112 of the Code and consequently the proceeding ought to be quashed. I have been taken through the order sheet entry of the learned Magistrate ordering the proceeding to be drawn up against the petitioners under section 107 of the Code and also the notice issued to the petitioners in pursuance thereof. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the substance of the information as given in the notice was of such a general nature and so vague that the petitioners would not be in a position to have any clear idea of the accusation against them and to meet them. The entry in the learned Magistrate's order sheet is dated 16.11.71 and reads as under : "Perused the report of the S.I. Police Kako P.S. duly recommended by D.I. Police Jehanabad for taking action under section 107 Cr. P. C. against the members of both the parties. From the perusal of the report I am satisfied 'that there' is serious apprehension of breach of the peace between the parties as both the parties are daggers drawn with each other and there exists long standing enmity and very tense feeling between the parties. Draw up, proceeding under section 107 Cr. From the perusal of the report I am satisfied 'that there' is serious apprehension of breach of the peace between the parties as both the parties are daggers drawn with each other and there exists long standing enmity and very tense feeling between the parties. Draw up, proceeding under section 107 Cr. P. C. against both the parties directing them to appear in person and to show cause, if any, as to why they shall not be ordered to execute bond of Rs. 2000/- each with 2 sureties of the like amount each to keep peace for a period of one year. Cause to be shown, if any, by 22.11.71". The notice which went out to the petitioners in pursuance of the said order passed by the learned' Magistrate is in the following terms : "Where as from the report of S.I. Police Kako dated 15-11-71 July recommenced by D. I. of Police Jehanabad for taking action u/s 107 Cr.P.C. against the members of the both parties it appears that there exists very tense feeling and long standing enmity between the parties. Both parties are daggers drawn with each other. They came to clash for which Jehanabad P.S. case No. 18(9)71 u/s 147/148/324/323 I.P.C. has been instituted and since then both the parties are in search of opportunity to take revenge from each other. Both the parties are desperate litigant, turbulent and law breaker. They are taking the law in their own hands, and want to break the public peace and tranquility. There is every likelihood of serious class bloodshed and riot at any moment. I am therefore satisfied that there is serious apprehension of breach of the peace and public tranquility at the hands of members of both the parties within the local limits of my jurisdiction. I do therefore under the provision of section 107 Cr. P.C. call upon the members of both the parties directing them to appear in person and to show cause, if any, as to why' they shall not be ordered, to execute bond of Rs. 2000/- each with 2 sureties of the like amount each to keep peace for a period of one year. Cause to be shown if any by 22.11.71" 4. An argument was made on behalf of the petitioners that the order in writing was absolutely vague. 2000/- each with 2 sureties of the like amount each to keep peace for a period of one year. Cause to be shown if any by 22.11.71" 4. An argument was made on behalf of the petitioners that the order in writing was absolutely vague. The expression 'order in writing', according to learned Counsel for the petitioners, meant the order as passed by the learned Magistrate in the order sheet and not the notice which went out to the petitioners signed by the said Magistrate. In other words, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the notice served on the petitioners• was not the order in writing within the meaning of section 112 of the Code. 5. I do not think it necessary to go into this question in the instant case because I am going to decide it on a shorter issue. If and when an occasion arises in some other case, this question may be, decided. In passing, however, I may observe, that the argument does not appeal to me. A Magistrate acting under section 112 of the Code is under an obligation to set forth in his order in writing the substance of the information on which he' proposes to act. The object in doing so is two fold: firstly, to show that he has duly applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before deciding to initiate the preventive action. and, secondly, to give a clear idea to the person proceeded against as to the charge which is required to be met, giving him an opportunity of producing whatever evidence he wants to adduce to meet the charges. Such being the object, the order in writing, possibly, cannot be confined merely to the order sheet entry leaving out the notice going out in pursuance' thereof. As I have already observed earlier, I need not decide this question in the instant case. I have just indicated my mind in the above terms. 6. For the purposes of this case, I will proceed on the notice which was served on the petitioners. I may state that if I confine the order in writing to be only the order sheet entry, that entry does not say anything specific and will definitely leave the petitioners thinking as to what they are called upon to answer. 6. For the purposes of this case, I will proceed on the notice which was served on the petitioners. I may state that if I confine the order in writing to be only the order sheet entry, that entry does not say anything specific and will definitely leave the petitioners thinking as to what they are called upon to answer. In the notice 'which has, been served upon the petitioners i the substance of the 'information disclosed to them and on which they were asked to show cause, if analysed, are only the following: (i) There exist very tense feeling and long standing enmity between the parties. (ii) 'Both parties are at daggers drawn with each other. (iii) They came to clash for which a criminal case has been instituted. (iv) Both the parties are in search of opportunities to take revenge on each other. (v) Both the parties are desperate litigant, turbulant and law-breaker, they are taking the law in their own hands and want to disturb peace and tranquility. (vi) There is likelihood of class bloodshed and riot at any moment. The petitioners can very well answer by merely denying each such accusation and then the Magistrate will be required to put supplementary questions to them which would then be the concrete facts concerning all these aforesaid general accusations. Thus, for example, that there is a sense of tense feeling and long standing enmity is an accusation of a general type, some specific Act, concerning the tense feeling and long standing enmity was the real question to be put to the petitioners. Otherwise the petitioners will really be handicapped in meeting the questions which were behind the mind of the learned Magistrate. Several decisions have been given by this Court in which accusations of a general nature have been deprecated. Some of those cases are Balkishun Sao V. Munno Khan 1969 P. L. J. R. 223 and Hasibuddin v. The State of Bihar 1971 P.L.J.R. 193. 7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that on the accusations made against the petitioners the drawing 'up of the proceedings under section 107 of the Code is not vindicated. 8. Some of those cases are Balkishun Sao V. Munno Khan 1969 P. L. J. R. 223 and Hasibuddin v. The State of Bihar 1971 P.L.J.R. 193. 7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that on the accusations made against the petitioners the drawing 'up of the proceedings under section 107 of the Code is not vindicated. 8. Quite apart from it, if between the date on which the proceedings were drawn up, namely, between 16th of November, 1971, and today, the 17th of July, 1975, no overt Act, has been committed by the petitioners, it only shows' that the drawing up of the proceedings against the petitioners was not justified. 9. In the result, the proceedings under section 107 of the Code against the petitioners drawn up by the impugned order are quashed and the applications are allowed. Applications allowed.