JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application by the Petitioners for quashing a proceeding initiated u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr. Barada Kanta Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate while acting u/s 107, should 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 enforced and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required. The procedure begins with Section 111A person proceeded against has to show-cause. So he must know the grounds for apprehension of the breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquility at his hand. He should be supplied with the substance of the overt acts for the purpose of his information so as to enable him to know the charges he has to meet. He further submitted that the delinquent might not be supplied with the information verbatim, but a vague information or information of generalized nature was not sufficient. Such information which kept the delinquent in dark did not satisfy the requirements of law. According to him, the order of the Magistrate suffered from the vice of vagueness and the initiation of the proceeding was without jurisdiction and void. He drew my attention to the order dated 8-5-1980 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 273 of 1980, which is extracted as follows: Whereas it has been made to appear to me from the report of the O.I.C., Mahanga P.S. there exist land dispute between the parties. The members of the 2nd party have been combined together and with a view to put the Ist party into trouble and loss are committing various overt acts which leads to serious breach of the peace. Since there is apprehension of the breach of the peace, I do hereby order u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure directing the members of the 2nd party to appear in my Court on 4-6-1980 and show cause as to why each of them should not to ordered to execute, a bond for Rs. 500/- with one local surety each for the like amount to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 6 months. Mr. 500/- with one local surety each for the like amount to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 6 months. Mr. Mohanty contended that the contents of the order are too vague and tile notices, issued to the Petitioners, reproduced verbatim the order passed. The requirement's of Section 111 were not complied with, i.e. the notices issued to the Petitioners did not disclose t he substance of the information received by the Magistrate on the basis of which he was of the opinion that there was apprehension of breach of peace. He contended that the order being the foundation of the jurisdiction and the most essential facts having not been incorporated either in the order, nor information of the same having been conveyed to the Petitioner by the notices, the defect went to the root of the validity of the proceeding and the proceeding stood vitiated. He drew my attention to the case of Krupasindhu Panigrahi Vs. Rex Sanatan Baliarsing and Others Vs. State and Another The State v. Somonath Mohapatra 19 (1955) C.L.T. 58, Lokanath Das and Ors. v. The State 24 (1958) C.L.T. 123, Dibakar Pradhan and Anr. v. State 32 (1966) C.L.T. 515, decided by this Court and submitted that the Magistrate in the order having not set forth the substance of the information received except in a vague and genera manner and the notices which were issued being verbatim copies of the order, the proceeding should be quashed. 3. There is much substance in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. His submissions also get support from a decision in the case of Madhu Limaye and Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Monghyr and Ors. AIR 1971 S.C. 2485. Therein there Lordships said: ...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 action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word 'substance' means the essence of the most important parts of the information. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate merely refers to existence of land dispute between the parties and commission of various overt acts by the Petitioners. No details are given except stating vaguely that various overt acts had been committed by the Petitioners. What consequence? In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate merely refers to existence of land dispute between the parties and commission of various overt acts by the Petitioners. No details are given except stating vaguely that various overt acts had been committed by the Petitioners. What consequence? 4. A defect in the order or notice does not, however, vitiate the proceeding started u/s 107. If no prejudice has been caused to the person proceeded against, the defect is curable. This seems to be the settled position of law so far as this Court is concerned. Sanatan Baliarsing and Others Vs. State and Another, and Dibakar Pradhan and Anr. v. State 32 (1966) C.L.T. 515. In the last mentioned case, this Court held that in such a situation the delinquent could ask the learned Magistrate to supply full particulars of the indictment. If thereafter there was failure to comply with the requirements, the delinquent could legitimately complain that there was prejudice. The Petitioners in this case, however, have moved this Court before that stage was reached and no prejudice is shown to have been caused. 5. Undaunted, the counsel proceeded to submit that about 16 months since the initiation of the proceeding had in the mean while elapsed and in obedience to the order dated 24-9-1980 passed by this Court, the Petitioners filed an undertaking not to endanger public peace and tranquility, and virtually bound themselves down for about one year. There being no report or allegations that they had committed any overt acts in the meantime or broken their undertaking, they might not be asked to undergo harassment by prolongation of the proceeding. 6. I am persuaded in the peculiar circumstances of the present case to consider it expedient in the interest of justice to quash the proceeding. It is open to the Magistrate to initiate a fresh proceeding if he finds apprehension of breach of peace. 7. While parting with the case, I must record my appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Mohanty. Commendable were his willingness to toil and zeal for investigation. 8. In the result, this revision allowed the proceeding being quashed. Final Result : Allowed