Judgment :- 1. By invoking the powers of this Court under S.482 Cr. P.C. each petitioner in these petitions seeks to quash the respective proceedings initiated against him under S.110 (e) and (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, No. II, Tellicherry. As a common point arises for determination in all these cases these petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The counsel appearing for both parties also agreed to this course. 2. Crl. MP. No. 187/79 is directed against the proceeding in MC. 110/78 and Crl MP. No. 189/79 is against the proceeding in MC. 112/78; while Crl. MP. Nos. 191/79 and 193/79 are respectively against proceedings in MC. Nos. 111 and 109/78. The petitioners are said to be workers belonging to a political party. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kolavallur, submitted reports against each of the petitioners before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, No. II, Tellicherry, making certain allegations. The learned magistrate on receipt of these reports against the petitioners apparently being satisfied registered cases against them in MC. Nos. 109 to 112/78 and issued summons initiating action under S.110 Cr. PC. against them. In pursuance of the summons received, the petitioners appeared before that court through their advocates. But the court below without passing a preliminary order as contemplated under S.111 Cr. PC. started to proceed with the inquiry and adjourned the case from time to time. These cases admittedly underwent 13 adjournments for the said purpose. The petitioners have now come up before this Court praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against each of them under S.110 Cr. P. C. in flagrant violation of section III Cr. P. C. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is the preliminary order under S.111 that confers jurisdiction on a magistrate to proceed further and inquire into the truth or otherwise of the information said to have been received by him; that an order under this section is the very basis of a proceeding under S 110 Cr.P.C, and that in the absence of such an order, the entire proceeding is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. It is not disputed that cases have been registered in M. C..Nos. 109 to 112/78 against the petitioners and proceedings under S.110 Cr. 3. It is not disputed that cases have been registered in M. C..Nos. 109 to 112/78 against the petitioners and proceedings under S.110 Cr. P. C. have been initiated against each of them in these cases and summons also have been issued to them to appear before the court below to proceed with the inquiry. It is also not disputed before this Court that a preliminary order as contemplated under S. Ill Cr. P. C. has not been passed in any of these cases. Under S.110 Cr. P. C., when a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who comes under any of the clauses (a) to (g), such magistrate may, in the manner provided in the other relevant provisions in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the magistrate thinks fit. The very object of this section is preventive and not punitive. This is a very important section in the sense that it is intended to protect and secure the interest of the society against injury at the hands of habitual offenders and desperate and dangerous characters. This is achieved by placing them under restraint in accordance with the procedures laid down in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure Action under this Chapter affects the liberty of a citizen and therefore the power under S.110 and other relevant sections in Chapter VIII should be exercised strictly in accordance with law, with caution and discretion. These powers should not be used as an engine of oppression to fetter or curtail the liberty of a subject. Expeditious action and prompt dealing with the matter are absolutely necessary in proceedings of this nature. Prolongations of the proceedings by unnecessary adjournments have to be deprecated. 4. Under S.111, when a magistrate acting under S.110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the 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. Although proceedings under S.110 have already been initiated against the petitioners, admittedly the magistrate has not passed a preliminary order as contemplated under S.111. Actions against a person under S.107 and 110 Cr. PC. are not to be taken as a matter of course. The concerned magistrate has to apply his mind to the materials placed before him and has to act in accordance with the provisions in Chapter VIII of the Code. The words "in the manner hereinafter provided" in the last and concluding paragraph of S.110 are very significant. It is clearly stated therein that only in the manner provided in S.111 in Chapter VIII, that the magistrate can require a person proceeded against to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for good behaviour for such period not exceeding three years, as he thinks fit. The magistrate cannot proceed in this regard in any manner he likes. A proceeding under this section is judicial and not administrative. The magistrate should pass an order charging the person proceeded against under one or other of the clauses in S.110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision in S.111 of the Code appears to be mandatory in nature. It is clear from a reading of S.111 and other relevant sections in Chapter VIII that when a magistrate acting under S.107, 108, 109 or 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, it is mandatory that he should make an order in writing setting forth the particulars stated in S.111 of the Code. It is this section which gives notice of the substance of the information furnished against him by the police, on the basis of which the magistrate was taking action against him. An order under this section in effect takes the place of a charge in a criminal case. When a person is called upon under S.110 Cr. P.C to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour for a specified period, he has a right to know the materials against him or the substance of the information furnished against him on the basis of which action was initiated against him. A preliminary order under S.111 is therefore the very basis and foundation of a proceeding under S.107 and 110 Cr. P.C. 5. A preliminary order under S.111 is therefore the very basis and foundation of a proceeding under S.107 and 110 Cr. P.C. 5. In Madhu Limaye v. S. D. M. Monghyr (AIR. 1971 SC. 2486 at p. 2499) the Supreme Court observed: "The procedure begins with S.112. It requires that the Magistrate acting under S.107 shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. Since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity at his hands. Although the section speaks of the 'substance of the information' it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information bodily but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word 'substance' means the essence of the most important parts of the information." The principle laid down in this case applies to a case under S.110 Cr. P. C. also. My views in this regard are fortified by the decisions of the various High Courts. (i) In Krishnaswami Thathachari v. Vanamamalai Bhashiakar (ILR. 30 Mad. 282) it has been held that absence of an order under S.112 (S. 111 of the New Code) is violation of a mandatory provision. (ii) In Birdhaj Roy v. The State (AIR. 1953 Cal. 491) it has been observed that a preliminary order of a magistrate not indicating the information received by him is bad in law. (iii) In Narsayya Lachmayya v. The State (AIR. 1953 Nag. 292) the view taken was that the failure of the magistrate to pass an order under S.112 (S. 111 of the New Code) constituted an illegality. (iv) In Zahir Ahmad v. Ganga Prasad (AIR. 1963 All. 4) it was held that the provisions in S.112 (S. 111 of the New Code) are mandatory and its disregard cannot be treated a mere irregularity. It follows from the above discussion of law and the admitted facts that the proceedings initiated under S.110 Cr. (iv) In Zahir Ahmad v. Ganga Prasad (AIR. 1963 All. 4) it was held that the provisions in S.112 (S. 111 of the New Code) are mandatory and its disregard cannot be treated a mere irregularity. It follows from the above discussion of law and the admitted facts that the proceedings initiated under S.110 Cr. P. C. against the petitioners by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, No. II, Tellicherry, are illegal and cannot be sustained. These petitions are therefore allowed and the impugned proceedings in M. C. Nos. 109 to 112/78 are hereby quashed.