Judgment :- Counter-petitioners in M.C.No. 137 of 1990 on the file of Executive First Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C., praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. 2. On the information furnished by the respondent the Executive First Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer had passed a preliminary order under Sec.111, Crl.P.C., acting under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. In that order, he had cited five instance and has ultimately stated that since he considers that there are materials to show that the counter-petitioners are continuously indulging in unlawful acts, they should show cause as to why they should not execute bond for Rs.1,000 for one year to keep peace. 3. Mr.K.V. Sridharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that: (i) though five instances are cited, petitioners 5 to 7 are not concerned in any of the five instances. (ii) Sec.107, Crl.P.C, would come into play only in a case when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful set that may probably occasion a breach of the peace of disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and in this case, in the impugned order, the Executive First Class Magistrate has only stated that there are materials to show that petitioners are continuously indulging in unlawful acts and that would hot be sufficient to act under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. I have heard Mr.Raja, the learned Government Advocate on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. The impugned order is passed against petitioners 5 to 7, against whom no instance whatsoever has been cited. That would show that total non-application of mind on the part of the Executive First Class Magistrate in passing the impugned order. 5. Regarding the second submission, I find that the impugned order does not at all show that the Executive First Class Magistrate was satisfied that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or public tranquillity. 5. Regarding the second submission, I find that the impugned order does not at all show that the Executive First Class Magistrate was satisfied that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or public tranquillity. In the absence of any such materials available before him and in the absence of his satisfaction of any such materials, he cannot act under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. The satisfaction was only to the extent that petitioners were indulging in unlawful acts. Mere indulgence in unlawful acts would not give rise to an action under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. unless there are materials to show that they would give rise to an apprehension contemplated in Sec.107, Crl.P.C. On this score, the impugned order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in M.C.No.137 of 1990 on the file of Executive First Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam shall stand quashed.