( 1 ) THE petitioners are called upon by a preliminary order under S. lll of the Crpc to show cause as to why each of them should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1,000 for maintaining peace for a period of three months. The said order is challenged in this petition under S. 482 of the crpc. ( 2 ) THE main ground of attack is that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements of S. 111 of the Crpc; so much so, it does not give specific information upon which the learned Magistrate satisfied himself as to the likelihood of breach of peace. ( 3 ) IN my opinion, the contention urged is well-founded, if one peruses the impugned order. It reads :"smt. Rangamma w/o Hanumanta resident of Arasanagi has submitted an application in Rural Police Station, Ganj Raichur on 10-5-76 stating that the respondents are harassing her and requested for necessary action in this matter. From the complaint and charge-sheet filed by the Police officials, i am satisfied there is likelihood of a breach of the peace and there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent U|s. 107crpg. Therefore i Jayakar Jerome, KAS, Taluka Magistrate, Raichur do hereby require the respondent to show cause as to why each of them should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs. 1,000 for maintaining peace for a period of 3 months. "the order does not state the acts complained of or the definite information received by the Magistrate. It only shows that Smt. Rangamma has complained to the police that the respondents were harassing her. The order is silent as to the manner and the matter in respect of which the harassment was complained of. All those matters ought to have been set out succinctly. Without clear ard definite information as to facts and details, the opportunity to show cause, even if afforded, would be purposeless and ineffective. S. 111 of the CPC requires the Magistrate to give adequate opportunity to the person with all the precise facts and allegations on the matter affecting the person against whom the process is issued. Without such definite facts and details of the substance of the information, the person against whom the show cause notice is given would not be in a position to reply and defend himself. Without such definite facts and details of the substance of the information, the person against whom the show cause notice is given would not be in a position to reply and defend himself. ( 4 ) A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Dodde gowda v. State of Mysore ( (1966) 1 Myslj, 260) Santhosh J, while dealing with the scope of S. 107 of the Crpc which is in pari materia withs. 111 of the new Code, observed that the information of the kind to be mentioned in S. 107 of the CPC 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. These principles are equally applicable to the facts of this case. The impugned order thus falls short of the requirements and appears to have been made in a casual manner without bestowing any serious thought over the problem. ( 5 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. --- *** --- .