Judgment : The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Pulnangudi, the respondent herein laid an information in Crime No. 1307 of 1989 of Sivagiri police station before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Olficcr, Tenkasi that feelings betwecnthe pa ttadars of Rasinga peri tank and the patladars of Kulasekaraperi tank continued to be strained, involving likelihood of breach of peace at any moment, endangering the public tranquillity, which was taken on file as M.C.No.2 of 1990. 2. Learned Executive Magistrate, on perusal of the information so laid and after deriving subjective satisfaction, passed a preliminary order under Sec.l 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort ‘the Code’), requiring the counter-petitioners, 65 in number, who are the petitioners herein, to show cause as to win they should not be oidered to execute a bond for Rv 1,000 each with two sureties for a like sum and to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year and also whv they should not be ordered to execute an interim bond till the disposal of the security proceedings initiated under See. 107 thereof. 3. On receipt of process, but before ever the commencement ol an inquiry, the present petitioners came forward with the present action by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Sec.482 of the Code to quash the proceedings so initiated against them. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in a bid to quash the proceedings, pressed the following two points for consideration: 1. The preliminary order passed under Sec.111 of the Code requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be required to execute an interim bond under Sec.116 thereof for a sum of Rs.1,000 is a factor vitiating the entirety of the proceedings. 2. The non-furnishing of the substance of the information, inclusive of the details such as time, place and the identity of the persons alleged to have been threatened in the preliminary order must also be construed as such a vital defect to throw the entire security proceedings lock, stock and barrel. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repeal such submissions. 6. It is settled law that interim bond under Sec. 116(3) of the Code can be ordered to be executed only after the commencement of the inquiry under Sec. 116(1) thereof. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repeal such submissions. 6. It is settled law that interim bond under Sec. 116(3) of the Code can be ordered to be executed only after the commencement of the inquiry under Sec. 116(1) thereof. When the Magistrate decided to take action under any one of the provisions of Secs.107 to 110 of the Code, he has to issue a notice under Sec.111 thereof requiring the persons against whom he proposes to take action to show cause as to why a bond should not be obtained from them. The notice so issued must have to be served in the manner contemplated by law. When the counter petitioners in response to the above notice, appeared before the Magistrate, the latter under Sec.116(1) of the Code should proceed to inquire into the truth of the information on the basis of which proceedings have been commenced and has to take such further evidence as may be necessary. Evidence has to be recorded in the manner provided for in summons causes. It is only after this stage that the question of requiring an interim bond would arise. 7. The very wordings of Sec.116(3) of the Code clearly indicate that after the commencement and before the completion, of the inquiry under Sub-sec (1) the Magistrate, it he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom an order under Sec.111 had already been made, to execute an interim bond. The procedure therefore clearly indicates that the question of interim bond would arise only after the counter-petitioners have appeared before the Magistrate and after the Executive Magistrate had commented the inquiry. Even for requiring an interim bond, the Executive Magistrate, has to record his reasons. 8. In the case on hand, learned Executive Magistrate found at the stage of passing a preliminary order under Sec.111 of the Code requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be required to execute an interim bond under Sec.116(3) thereof for a sum of Rs.1,000) which is clearly in flagrant violation of the provisions of Sec.11(3) thereof. Such an order, therefore, cannot at all be sustained in law. 9. Such an order, therefore, cannot at all be sustained in law. 9. The second point urged for consideration revolves on the question of non furnishing of the information, inclusive of the details such as time, place and identity of the persons alleged to have been threatened in the preliminary order. A perusal of the preliminary order in the case on hand, reveals simple reference to the crime number in those three instances cited, without actually furnishing the substance of the information and other details required to be given. The furnishing of the information and other details required to be given in such a preliminary order is not an empty formality and all those things are required to be so given so as to enable the counter-petitioners against whom security proceedings had been initiated to know the case they had to meet and prepare for their defence. Such non-furnishing of the information and other details has also been construed, by a catena of decisions of this court, to be such a vital flaw vitiating the security proceedings initiated under Sec.107 of the Code. The security proceedings initiated as such has to fall to the ground on this score also. The petition, as such, deserves to be allowed. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the security proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in M.C.No.2 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi shall stand quashed.