JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings u/s 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure pending against the applicants in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jasrana, district Mainpuri, be quashed. 2. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : On or about 19th of September, 1975, the Station Officer police station Phariha submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jasrana, stating that, while on Gasht in village Lakhuwa he came to know that there was serious dispute between the applicants on the one side and Mohar Singh on the other as a result of which there was apprehension of breach of peace. On receipt of this report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 9th of October, 1975, directing that the case be registered and the applicants be summoned for 25th of October, 1975. On 25th of October, 1975, notice u/s 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was read over to Kaptan Singh and Kirpal Singh (applicant Nos. 6 and 7), who were present. As against the other applicants, it was directed that bailable warrants may be issued. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the applicants have filed the present application. 3. The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants before me is two-fold : (i) That the report submitted by the police of P.S. Phariha was vague, that it did not contain any precise information and that such report could not from the basis of the proceedings u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure, and (ii) that, in any case, the Magistrate could not proceed with the case without making compliance of Sections 111 and 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since this application should succeed on the second point, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the first point. Section 111 of the Code reads as follows : 111. When a Magistrate acting u/s 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth 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. Section 112 merely states that, if the person in respect of whom such order is made is present in Court, it shall be read over to him and if he so desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him. Thereafter comes section 113 which reads as follows : 313. If such person is not present in Court, the Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the Court: Provided that whenever it appears to such Magistrate, upon the report of a police officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Magistrate), that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace, and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate may at any time issue a warrant for his arrest. Section 114 states that every summons or warrant issued u/s 113 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made u/s 111 and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing the summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under, the same. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid pro visions of the Code make it patently clear that a Magistrate acquires jurisdiction to proceed against any person u/s 107 of the Code only after he has recorded an order u/s 111 of the Code. It is, therefore, mandatory, according to the aforesaid provision, that, if the person to be proceeded against is not present in Court, summons or warrant should issue against him and the order recorded u/s 111 of the Code must accompany to such summons or warrant. 6. In the instant case, it has been averred in the affidavit accompanying the present application that no order u/s 111 of the Code was recorded by the Magistrate before directing issue of summons against the applicants. The copy of the order-sheet annexed with the present application shows that order summoning the applicants were passed on 9th of October, 1975. The copy of the order u/s 111 of the Code (Annexure 'iv') does not bear any date. The copy of the order-sheet annexed with the present application shows that order summoning the applicants were passed on 9th of October, 1975. The copy of the order u/s 111 of the Code (Annexure 'iv') does not bear any date. learned Counsel for the applicants produced before me a certified copy of that order and the certified copy also does not bear any date. There is, however, a specific averment in the affidavit accompanying the application that that order was passed sometime after 9th October, 1975. No counter-affidavit having been filed on behalf of the State controvert that fact it should be accepted that the order u/s 111 was passed sometime after 9th October, 1975. It, therefore, follows that the Magistrate initiated proceedings in the instant case without first recording an order u/s 111 of the Code. There are a series of decisions in which it has been held that the provisions contained in section 111 of the Code are mandatory and that the non-compliance thereof vitiated the entire proceedings. Therefore, the mere fact that the learned Magistrate seized jurisdiction in the instant case without making compliance of section 111 of the code should be sufficient to allow this application. It may, however, not be out of place to add that the learned Magistrate committed yet another illegality in the conduct of the proceedings. The law requires that a copy of the order passed u/s 111 should have been sent along with summons or warrant and should have been delivered to the applicants at the time of the service of the summons or execution of the warrant. The summons were directed to be issued before the order u/s 111 was sent along with the summons. On 25th of October, 1975, the learned Magistrate passed an order issuing boilable warrants against the applicants, other than Kaptan Singh and Kirpal Singti, as they were not present. Even in that order he did not say that a copy of the order passed u/s 111 of the Code shall accompany the warrants and shall be delivered to the applicants. 7. This application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings in criminal case No. 110 of 1975 u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure State v. Mohan Lal Singh, pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jasrana, district Mainpuri, are hereby quashed.