Order This criminal M.P. is filed for quash the preliminary order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti in M.C.No.64 of 1985 dated 6.6.1985. The said order was passed on a report received from Inspector of Police, Puliankudi in Crime No.207/85 to the effect that the petitioners residing in Edaiyankulam and its surrounding villages are indulging in act of violance involving breach of peace and are terrorising the villagers and asking the people to do what they dictate. It is also stated that there are factions and feelings by which there is imminent danger to breach of peace. On receiving the said report the Sub Divisional Magistrate after a subjective satisfaction which is stated in the issued impugned order required the petitioners (41 in number) to appear before him at Kovilpatti and to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.1,000/- each with sureties for the like sum, to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year and also to show cause why they should not be asked to execute an interim bond till the disposal of the case. The order also consists of particular instances where the petitioners are concerned with commission of several offences under the Indian Penal Code and the same is as detailed below: Instance No.1:-On 23.4.1985 at above 10.00 p.m. at Edaiyankulam C.Ps.1 to 4 assaulted one Dayachandran s/o Urkavalan of Edaiyankulam and caused simple injuries due to some petty dispute took place at Circus theatre. Instance No.2: On 27.5.1985 at 7.00 a.m. at Edaiyankulam in the Athi Dravidas Colony the houses of Muthukutti, Arjunan and Patchaiammal were set fire by the members of unlawful assembly consisting of C.Ps.5 to 15 in which the entire houses, paddy bags, cotton and house hold articles were burned ashes. Instance No.3: On 1.6.1985 at about 10.30 hrs., the C.Ps.16 to 29 armed with sticks and stones raided the Athi Diravidas Colony at Edaiyankulam and threatened Muthukutty and his family members to quit the village at once failing which their lives could be at stake and thereby caused fear panic and insecurity to them. Instance No.3: On 1.6.1985 at about 10.30 hrs., the C.Ps.16 to 29 armed with sticks and stones raided the Athi Diravidas Colony at Edaiyankulam and threatened Muthukutty and his family members to quit the village at once failing which their lives could be at stake and thereby caused fear panic and insecurity to them. Instance No.4: On 2.6.1985 at about 3.00 p.m., while the witness Kovilpillai of Gomathimuthupuram was at Edaiyankulam to see their relatives the C.Ps.30 to 41 armed with sticks and other weapons marched towards the Athi Diravidas colony abused Kovilpillai with filthy language and chased him by saying that he should not enter into the village. Kovilpillai ran for his life and escaped from the hands of the C.Ps. The entire matter is in the preliminary stage of issue of notice and the petitioners are yet to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate to show cause as to why they should not be asked to execute a bond under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code. Even at his stage the above petition is filed seeking aid of this Court to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. The contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in support of his argument that the proceedings are liable to be quashed are as follows: (i) There is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the Magistrate before. issuing the notice under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code. (ii) The abovesaid preliminary order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, is not sustainable in view of the fact that the overtacts of each of the petitioners had not been specifically stated. (iii) Each of the accused is not concerned with all the offences set out in the preliminary order. But they are concerned with only one offence. (iv) In all the instances mentioned in the preliminary notice, cases have been registered and investigation is pending and as such the issue of notice amounts to simultaneous starting of another proceedings with reference to the same offence and the same will prejudice the petitioners concerned, and hence it is illegal. 3. The first contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is, the preliminary order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, can be issued only after a subjective satisfaction on the part of the officer concerned and the present order is not such an order. 3. The first contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is, the preliminary order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, can be issued only after a subjective satisfaction on the part of the officer concerned and the present order is not such an order. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel cited the following decisions: Perumal v. State Perumal v. State (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 173 and Ayyavoo Chettiar v. Inspector of Police, Ennore Circle Ayyavoo Chettiar v. Inspector of Police, Ennore Circle (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 112. In the case reported in Perumal v. State Perumal v. State (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 173, a single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “The Magistrate has also not applied his mind or held any enquiry on receipt of the report from the police. Nor any opportunity was given to the petitioners to put forth their contentions. The impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate is therefore clearly illegal and liable to be quashed.” The gist of the final order was the learned Magistrate without applying his mind or setting out the reasons directed execution of the bond. But in this case the enquiry and the final order is yet to follow. Hence, the principle laid down in the above case cannot apply to the present case. The next case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that of Maheswaran, J., in Ayyavoo Chettiar v. Inspector of Police, Ennore Circle AyyavooChettiar v. Inspector of Police, Ennore Circle (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 112 wherein the learned Judge has held as follows: “A notice under section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code has to satisfy a double test. The first is that the notice must furnish all the information which is laid against a person or persons, and the second is, before issuing a notice, the Magistrate, has to satisfy himself that the situation calls for issuing of a show cause order. There is nothing in the preliminary order to indicate that the Magistrate has made an objective assessment about the truth and urgency of the information laid before him. Merely mentioning or extracting the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure Code is not sufficient. A perusal of the order shows that the Magistrate has not given any material details relating to the incidents which led the Inspector of Police to lay the information under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code”. Merely mentioning or extracting the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure Code is not sufficient. A perusal of the order shows that the Magistrate has not given any material details relating to the incidents which led the Inspector of Police to lay the information under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code”. In the body of the judgment the learned Judge while discussing the facts states; that in that case there are no material details relating to the incidents which led the Inspector of Police to lay the information under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. But in this case, the offences committed by each of the petitioners are specifically stated in the body of the order and further the learned Magistrate has clearly stated that he came to the conclusion to issue the preliminary order only after satisfying himself. At the stage of issue of preliminary notice, apart from applying his mind to the facts placed before him by the concerned Police Officer, no further thing can be done by the Magistrate. Under the circumstances, the subjective satisfaction at the stage of issue of preliminary notice, cannot be anything other than what the Magistrate has stated in the preliminary order. In so far as this case is concerned, the facts relating to the commission of offences by each of the petitioners herein are not lacking and there is also an indication of subjective satisfaction which is not present in the case cited above. Hence, the principles laid down in the above case cited, cannot apply to the present case. 4. The next case cited in support of the Counsel for the petitioner's argument is the case reported in Thirumalaiappa Gounder (alias) C.Chinnasamy IN RE. Thirumalaiappa Gounder (alias) C.Chinnasamy IN RE. (1981) L.W.(Crl.) 106, were Maheswaran, J., has held as follows: “On the facts, the order of the Magistrate shows that the substance of the information received has not been set forth. Even the summons which followed the notice does not contain the information received or atleast the essence of the most important part of the information. Consequently, it must be held that notice under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, has not been issued in accordance with the requirement of that section. Even the summons which followed the notice does not contain the information received or atleast the essence of the most important part of the information. Consequently, it must be held that notice under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, has not been issued in accordance with the requirement of that section. It is a well established principle of law that when an act is required to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner, or not at all.” In the said case, the preliminary order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, merely directed the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be asked to execute a bond, without stating the reasons for it. But in this case, the entire contents of the report received by the Police are set out, the offences in which the petitioners are involved and also the subjective satisfaction on which the Magistrate has come to the conclusion find a place in the preliminary order. Hence, the facts in the above case are entirely different and the observation found therein cannot apply to the facts of this case. 5. The next case cited on behalf of the petitioners in a case reported in Murugesan, D. v. State Murugesan, D. v. State (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 283, where a single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “An order passed under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, is a judicial order and the Magistrate has to satisfy himself whether the situation calls for the issuing of a show cause order. The impugned order does not set forth information in detail and the overt acts against each petitioner had not been mentioned, the time and place of occurrence, or whether any specific complaint had been given against any one of the petitioners, and it does not mention about any of the petitioners but it is imply stated that the local Hindus got agitated, shouted against the Tahsildar and pelted stones; except extracting the instances mentioned in the police report, the impugned order does not show that the Magistrate applied his mind and made any preliminary evaluation before issuing the show cause notice. As the Magistrate has not considered the salient points of law laid down in the above decisions, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.” But in this case the preliminary notice issued under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, is not lacking in particulars and several instances in which the petitioners indulged are pointed out and the fact that the conclusion for the issue of notice had been arrived at by the subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned is also stated. Hence, the principle laid down in the above case cannot give any guidance in so far as this case is concerned. 6. In so far as the first ground is concerned, I examined the impugned order, bearing in mind the principles laid down in the above decisions and the only conclusion that can be arrived at is, the order is not bereft of facts and it also cannot be said, the order was passed without a subjective satisfaction on the part of the Magistrate concerned. 7. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is, in the preliminary order the overt acts of each of the individuals are not specifically stated, as observed in the judgment of K.M.Natarajan, J., in Murugesan, D. v. State Murugesan, D. v. State (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 283. The learned Judge observed that the preliminary order does not set out the information in detail regarding the overt acts against each petitioner and also does not contain the time and place of occurrence. But in this case, these proceedings are as a result of several commission of offences and committed in groups and the Executive Magistrate concerned had taken care to set out all the instances of offences perpetrated and the persons involved in the same even in the preliminary order. As such, there cannot be any grievance on the part of the petitioners made on the ground that the overt acts had not been stated. 8. The third point urged on behalf of the petitioners is, each of the accused is not concerned with all the offences set out in the schedule to the notice and as such one cannot be made responsible for the acts of another. 8. The third point urged on behalf of the petitioners is, each of the accused is not concerned with all the offences set out in the schedule to the notice and as such one cannot be made responsible for the acts of another. But in the proceedings under section 107 are concerned, it is not aimed at prosecuting persons for individual offence, but it is a wholesome provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, to find way, and means to keep the body of individual to maintain public tranquillity. In such case it is sufficient that the petitioners constituting one or more body of persons are likely to indulge in acts prejudicial to public tranquillity. And in this case, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion from the fact that the petitioners collectively indulged in several offences are likely to indulge in acts prejudicial to public tranquillity and hence the satisfaction of the officer concerned cannot be questioned on the ground that each one is not accused of all the several offences mentioned in the notice. 9. As regards the fourth contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, it must be noted that section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, proceedings cannot be taken as accusation of offence committed by the petitioners. The purpose of the proceedings is to avoid likely breach of peace, in other words, to prevent the breach as prevention is better than cure. Under the circumstances, section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. Proceedings cannot be construed as accusation of offence under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, and cannot be termed as simultaneous proceedings in respect of the same offence. So far as this aspect is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following two decisions: A.B.Chandra Reddy v. Revenue Inspector, Rajampet A.B.Chandra Reddy v. Revenue Inspector, Rajampet (1980) 1 An.W.R. 455: (1980) MLJ. (Crl.) 432: (1980) Crl.L.J. 1169 and Baskaran v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Baskaran v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 57.In A.B. Chandra Reddy v. Revenue Inspector, Rajampet A.B. Chandra Reddy v. Revenue Inspector, Rajampet (1980) 1 An.W.R. 455: (1980) MLJ. (Crl.) 432: (1980) Crl.L.J. 1169 and Baskaran v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Baskaran v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 57.In A.B. Chandra Reddy v. Revenue Inspector, Rajampet A.B. Chandra Reddy v. Revenue Inspector, Rajampet (1980) 1 An.W.R. 455: (1980) MLJ. (Crl.) 432: (1980) Crl.L.J. 1169, the single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed as follows: “Where an offence under Section 353 of Penal Code was registered against a person for a solitary act and the police investigation for the same was in progress, simultaneous launching of proceeding under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code for the same act, against the same person was not proper.” Here, the act is not solitary, but multifarious and the persons concerned also are many and hence the principles laid down in the above case cannot apply to the facts of the present case. 10. In Baskaran v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Baskaran v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 57, a single Judge of this Court has observed as follows: “This petition was filed to quash the proceedings before a Magistrate passing a preliminary order under section 111 , Criminal Procedure Code, and directing an enquiry under section 107, in pursuance of the preliminary order, contending that the order referred only to one incident and the order itself disclosed that in respect of that incident, the police had registered a case and find a charge sheet and the case was pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate”. The order is liable to be quashed. But in this case, as already stated there are several instances where persons or alleged to have indulged in preparation of offences and only to prevent such perpetration of future offending by body of persons the abovesaid sections are enacted. Under the circumstances, the principles laid down in respect of perpetration of a single offence, in respect of which case has been registered, cannot apply to the facts of the present case. 11. On a consideration of the entire circumstances it cannot be said that the preliminary order issued under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, by the learned Executive Magistrate is vitiated in any way. 11. On a consideration of the entire circumstances it cannot be said that the preliminary order issued under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, by the learned Executive Magistrate is vitiated in any way. But the last sentence of the order directing the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners should not be asked to execute an interim bond does not appear to be satisfactory, because that conclusion can be arrived at only after considering the pleas put forward by the petitioners. Hence, the request for quashing the preliminary notice under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, is negatived and at the same time the direction as to why the petitioners should not be directed to execute an interim bond is set aside and the learned Executive Magistrate is at liberty to consider the plea of the petitioners and then come to a conclusion as to whether the execution of the interim bond is necessary. With this observation the petition is dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.