Judgment : Heard all the parties. 2. The above revision is directed against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Vellore, dated 30.9.1994, wherein the learned Executive Magistrate, by exercising his power under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. summoned both A-party and B Party to appear before him on 10.1.1994 at 3.30 p.m. and in pursuant to which, passed a final order dated 30.9.1994 and thus decided the rights between A-party and B-party, with regard to their respective burial ground. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.9.1994, the petitioners who belongs to A-party have filed the above revision. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, challenges the order dated 30.9.1994, on the following grounds: (i) The order dated 30.9.1994 by the learned Executive Magistrate, Vellore, is illegal inasmuch as the learned Executive Magistrate has passed the said order clubbing both A-party and B-party, which is not permissible under law; and (ii) The order dated 30.9.1994 of the learned Executive Magistrate, Vellore is beyond the scope of Sec.107 read with Sec.III of Crl.P.C. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, does not object the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as mentioned above. 5. The learned Government Advocate, while supporting the case of the learned senior counsel states that the impugned order is vitiated for the reasons namely: (i) The order is clubbed and passed against both A-party and B-party and (ii) the order dated 30.9.1994 is beyond the scope of Sec.107 read with Sec.III, Crl.P.C. 6. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Secs.107 and III, Crl.P.C. which read as follows: “Sec.107, Crl.P.C. Security for keeping the peace in other cases: (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace of disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. (2) Proceedings under this Section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.” “Sec.III Crl.P.C. Order to be made: When a Magistrate acting under Sec.107, Sec.108, Sec.109 or Sec.110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall 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 in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.” 7. A plain and harmonious reading of Secs.107 and III of Criminal Procedure Code makes it clear that the learned Executive Magistrate is under an obligation to give show cause notice before passing an order under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. read with Sec.III, Crl.P.C. setting out the grounds for initiating the proceedings under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. and also is under an obligation to mention the amount of the bond to be executed and the term for which it is to be in force. 8. A reading of the order dated 30.9.1994 does not speak about any such amount of the bond or the term for which the bond is to be executed by the respective parties. On the other hand, by the order dated 30.9.1994, the learned Executive Magistrate, Vellore, has chosen to decide the rights between the parties which cannot be decided by the learned Executive Magistrate while passing orders under Sec.107, Crl.P.C. read with Sec.III, Crl.P.C. 9. Therefore, I am obliged to quash the impugned order dated 30.9.1994, however, the parties are at liberty to work out their respective rights in appropriate forum. 10. In the result, revision is allowed. No costs.