Judgment 1. This application is directed against the order, dated the 29th Dec., 1975, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City, in a proceeding under S. 107 of the Criminal P. C, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). On an application filed by Anil Kumar Misra, Opposite Party No. 1, the Magistrate passed the following order on 29-12-75. "Heard the petitioner. The matter seems to be urgent. Remind the officer in-charge by giving a copy to submit report if the life of the petitioner in fact is in danger. Proceeding under S. 107, Cr. P. C. should be started. Further a report should be submitted at once. In the meantime issue show cause proceeding from the record at once, Put up on 15-1-76. Sd/- G. D. Mishra, S. D. M." In pursuance of this order, a notice was also issued to the petitioner and a copy of the same has been filed along with this application marked as Annexure-1 in which, it has been stated that the petitioner was threatening to kill the second party and thus there was an apprehension of breach of the peace and, therefore, the petitioner should show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000.00 with two sureties each of the like amount for maintaining peace for a period of one year. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order, dated the 29th Dec., 1975, and the notice served on him as contained in Annexure-1 has moved this Court in revision for quashing. 2. Mr. Salauddin Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the order, dated 29-12-75 is absolutely vague, does not give any substance of information and also does not show that the Magistrate was satisfied that there was an apprehension of breach of the peace, because he has called for a report from the police. According to him, no proceeding under S. 107 was initiated, still the petitioner has been asked to execute bond by virtue of the notice (Annexure-1) which is wholly illegal and unjustified. It has also been submitted that the matters which has been referred to in the notice has not been mentioned in the order sheet and in that view of the matter, the notice sent to the petitioner is bad and should be quashed. 3. It has also been submitted that the matters which has been referred to in the notice has not been mentioned in the order sheet and in that view of the matter, the notice sent to the petitioner is bad and should be quashed. 3. Learned counsel has further submitted that even in the notice the substance of information received is not given and, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to file an effective show cause. 4. Mr. Jagdish Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has, however, contended that from the petition, filed it is absolutely clear that there was a bad blood between the parties for which a number of instances had been cited in the aforesaid petition, dated 29-12-75 and the learned Magistrate was also conscious of the fact that he had asked the police to submit the report at once and according to him, a proceeding was actually not started against the petitioner, but simply the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why a proceeding should not be started against him, In other words, it was a preliminary notice to the petitioner and the Magistrate wanted to enquire whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, a proceeding under S. 107 of the Code was necessary to be initiated. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 has further submitted that the Magistrate has taken extra caution in this case for which the petitioner should have no grievance and even if he files his show cause, no prejudice would be caused to him, because after considering the show cause, the Magistrate would decide the matter finally. After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned order, dated 29-12-1975 which has been quoted in full and the notice sent to the petitioner (Annexure-1) I am of the opinion that a peculiar procedure unknown to law has been adopted by the learned Magistrate. Since the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is in-charge of law and order of a sub-division, I will deal with this aspect of the matter in detail, so that there may not be any apprehension in his mind in future. Since the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is in-charge of law and order of a sub-division, I will deal with this aspect of the matter in detail, so that there may not be any apprehension in his mind in future. In initiating such a proceeding, it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate and if he is satisfied on police report or otherwise that a proceeding under S. 107 of the Code should be started, he should record the reasons of his satisfaction and issue notice to the person sought to be proceeded against in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code. Therefore, the primary thing is the satisfaction of the Magistrate. In the instant case, from the impugned order, it is absolutely clear that the Magistrate was not satisfied on the petition filed by opposite party on 29-12-75 otherwise he would not have asked for a police report and sent the copy of the aforesaid petition to them. There was also a direction that the police should submit the report at once. All these clearly indicate that the Magistrate was not satisfied. If he was not satisfied then it necessarily follows that no proceeding could have been started. Now as far as the notice is concerned, it is ministerial act and this has to be incorporated according to the order-sheet. In the order sheet, there is no such direction that the petitioner should be asked to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 1000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each for keeping peace for one year. Therefore, reading the order, it is absolutely clear that, in fact, no proceeding was started and still the petitioner by virtue of the notice (Annexure-1) has been asked to show cause as to why he should not execute bond for maintaining peace for one year. This is in my opinion illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. 6. Now, I will take up for consideration the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 that it was a show cause to the petitioner as to why a proceeding should not be started against him. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the Magistrate wanted to be satisfied before initiating the proceeding against the petitioner. In my opinion, this procedure will also be wholly without jurisdiction. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the Magistrate wanted to be satisfied before initiating the proceeding against the petitioner. In my opinion, this procedure will also be wholly without jurisdiction. I may better quote S. 107 of the Code. "107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases - (1) when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit." The words in the manner hereinafter provided are essential words and the Magistrate cannot discover a manner of his own as he has done in this case, The manner provided is clearly laid down under S. 111 of the Code. Issue of a preliminary notice to show cause apart from what is provided in S. 111 does not appear to be justified. Before the Magistrate two courses are open to him. If he is satisfied on such report or information, he will immediately draw up a proceeding under S. 107 of the Code, but if he is not satisfied, then he will not take any action and leave the matter as it is, He cannot adopt a third course unknown to law and issue show cause to person sought to be proceeded against for being satisfied whether a proceeding should be started or not, I am supported in my views by a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in S. M. Tulsibala Rakshit V/s. N. N. Khosal, 1953 0 CrLJ 344 where in a similar circumstance, a notice of show cause as to why a proceeding should not be started was held to be wholly illegal and unjustified and was quashed, Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the point which I have discussed above, the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna City, dated 29-12-1975 Is set aside and also the notice as contained in Annexure-1 and the entire proceeding is quashed. 7. 7. In the result, the application succeeds and the order of the learned Magistrate and notice (Annexure-1) are set aside and the entire proceeding is quashed.