V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Sonavane for the petitioners, Shri S. M. Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State, They are heard on the petition u/ S. 482, Cr. P. C. preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of proceedings instituted against them u/ss. 107, 116, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have placed on record photostat copy of the notice, Ex. P/ 5, calling upon them to appear before the said Court on 6-1-90. A certified copy of the order dt. 6-1-90 has also been placed on record. This order, as per the certified copy, has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The case number as given in the notice, Annexure-P/5 as well as the certified copy is the same 256/89. The parties are also the same State through P. S. Tukoganj v. Dhannalal s/o Chenaram. ( 3 ) SO far as notice, Ex. P/5 is concerned, it is apparent that if the proceedings were before the S. D. M. , a Naib-Tahsildar cannot be any stretch of law direct issuance of notice, even for appearance. It is the Presiding Officer of the Court, who to direct issuance of notice. This notice is, therefore, invalid at its very inception and is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. ( 4 ) SO far as proceedings pending before the S. D. M. as evidence by certified copy of the order-sheet dt. 6-1-90 are concerned, a fresh notice has been directed to be issued u/s. 111, Cr. P. C. , calling upon the non-applicant to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 1000/- for keeping peace for a period of six months. The next date fixed is 6-1-90. Record of this case is available. On 6-1-90 the petitioners made their appearance before the Court and filed their personal bonds, which are accepted by the Executive Magistrate. Time was granted to them for filing the surety. Now the case is fixed for 19-3-1990. ( 5 ) SHRI Sonavane urged that the very issuance of notice itself stands vitiated. The title shows that it was from the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was therefore, asked if it was the S. D. M. , who had passed the order, how can this be when order being passed by the S. D. M. and notice being issued by the Naib-Tahsildar, reconciled. The title shows that it was from the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was therefore, asked if it was the S. D. M. , who had passed the order, how can this be when order being passed by the S. D. M. and notice being issued by the Naib-Tahsildar, reconciled. Going through the record it was submitted that the District Magistrate has authorised the Naib-Tahsildars to try such proceedings u/ss. 107 and 116, Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) IT is not the question of authority. The question is one of transfer. Whether the case which was pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was transferred in accordance with law to the Court of Naib-Tahsildar. There is no such order placed on record. Undeniably the order was passed, as per the certified copy filed by the petitioner, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 7 ) SHRI Jain, however, states that it was merely the printed form, which mentions the S. D. M. in its title, although as a matter of fact, the order was passed by the Naib-Tahsildar. ( 8 ) PETITIONERS counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mansoor v. State of M. P. 1985 (2) Cur Cri J 313 : (1986 Cri LJ 57) and submitted that it shows lack of application of mind in issuing the notice. ( 9 ) IT must be added that these proceedings, which certainly affects citizens right, should not be routinely adhered to and the required procedure must be strictly followed. If these provisions are not followed, its necessary consequence would be either irregularity or an incurable irregularity in the proceedings. It was stressed by the petitioners counsel that the irregularities in the present proceedings are of incurable nature. The gist of information has not been supplied to the petitioner. Merely saying that a dispute with regard to a rented accommodation without specifying any act or overtact on the part of the petitioner, would not constitute the type of information, which is required to be furnished by the person proceeded against. There is no such information in the notice so as to enable the notice to ascertain the premises or the name of the tenant or co-tenant, who are involved in the dispute. In such circumstances, it is difficult for any person to submit a reply to the notice. There is no such information in the notice so as to enable the notice to ascertain the premises or the name of the tenant or co-tenant, who are involved in the dispute. In such circumstances, it is difficult for any person to submit a reply to the notice. This notice is also liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. ( 10 ) THE further question that arises for consideration is whether the defect in the notice would result in vitiating the notice as a whole or it can be corrected at a later stage. The petitioners counsel maintained that proceedings as a whole would stand vitiated. He placed reliance on a decision in Jagdip v. State (1987) 2 Crimes 472 (Delhi), wherein it has been held : "no grounds which may have persuaded the Court to initiate the proceedings u/s. 107 of the Code are stated in the order. The blanks are filled in the cyclostyled form. No substance of any information on the basis of which the Court purported to act is stated anywhere. The Courts of law are under an obligation to attend to the provision under which they are acting. They would not be discharging their duties if they do not find time even to read the provisions. Without reading the provision the Court will not become acquainted with its requirements. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners are vitiated by gross illegality. In view of the postulations in S. 107 and S. 112 of the Code it is the right of the person or persons proceeded against to know the substance of the information on the basis of which the Magistrate may have acted. Orders passed under those provisions are open to scrutiny at the hands of the Courts of superior jurisdiction. " ( 11 ) THE record shows that even orders u/s. 111 Cr. P. C. are passed on pre-cyclostyled proformas. A mere reading of Section would show that an order under this Section (popularly known as a preliminary order) is a condition precedent for taking further steps in any proceeding u/ss. 107-110. Such order, with its required contents, must be recorded and communicated even where the Police have brought before the Magistrate a person under arrest as a suspected offender (e. g. u/. Ss. 107-110. Such order, with its required contents, must be recorded and communicated even where the Police have brought before the Magistrate a person under arrest as a suspected offender (e. g. u/. Ss. 41, 56, ante) or u/s. 151, even though no summons need be issued because the person is already before the Court. ( 12 ) IT cannot be denied or disputed that an order made under this provision has a serious repercussion on the individual proceeded against and the record shows the use of pre-cyclostyled proformas with some insertions here or there in passing such orders. No amount of urgency can be a substitute for this sort of mechanism in passing judicial orders on serious consideration of facts alleged in the complaint. This is nothing short of a farce. The first thing that a Magistrate is required to do after receipt of information is to apply his mind to such information and if he is satisfied on such application of mind, that there is ground for proceeding under this Chapter, he is required to pass an order in writing. This cannot be reduced to a mechanical process, as is evidenced from the record of this case. It is for this reason (and not for the reason as argued by the learned counsel that notice is defective) that the proceedings as a whole are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. ( 13 ) IN the end the prevailing practice of using pre-cyclostyled forms / pro forma orders with a few insertions in the space left blank, in such serious matters, which call for judicial application of mind and recording of satisfaction, as contemplated by S. 111 Cr. P. C. must be deprecated in no uncertain terms. It is inconceivable that judicial orders, though required to be passed by Executive Magistrates, could be reduced to cyclostyled proformas. Second Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure contains Forms of various descriptions. It was never the intention of the Legislature to provide proforma orders to be passed u/s. 111 Cr. P. C. It needs to be impressed upon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Executive Magistrates making use of such pre-cyclostyled orders u/s. 111, Cr. P. C. , that they must shun this practice forthwith, last the proceedings may meet the same fate as in this petition. Order accordingly. .