Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this application filed under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18-8-1996 passed by Sub-divisional Magistrate, west Muzaffarpur in case No. M-1468 of 1996, drawing a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal procedure against the petitioners. 2. The validity of the aforesaid order has been questioned on various grounds including that the order does not set forth or contain the substance of information as required under Section 111 of the Code nor was disclosed anything as to how the magistrate was satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of peace in respect of some lands in dispute between the parties. 3. I have heard Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jagdish Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who have agreed that this application may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. 4. Before appreciating the rival contention of the parties it is necessary to look into the impugned order passed by the Court below which is reproduced hereinabelow: 5. From perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the learned magistrate has not indicate the substance of accusation or substance of information in this order. The impugned order also does not show as to under what manner the petitioners are likely to commit breach of peace. Sec.107 of the Code reads as under : "s.107.- 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 peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach or the peace of disturb the public tranquillity 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 a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction. " 6. Section 111 reads as under : order to be made: "when a Magistrate acting under section 107, Sec.108, Sec.109 or section 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. From bare reading of the aforesaid two sections it is crystal clear that the Magistrate exercising power under Sec.111 of the Code must record a satisfaction about the existence of breach of peace after recording the substance of accusation and the substance of information. 8. This court repeatedly took the aforesaid views in a series of decision. In the case of Balkishun Sao V/s. Munno khan reported in 1969 PLJR 223, this court held as under ; "under Sec.107 of the Code, whenever a Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of piece he may require such person to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year. This has to be done in the manner provided in the subsequent sections and the manner is provided in Sec.112 of the Code. That section requires a Magistrate to make an order in writing setting forth the substance of information received. " 9. This has to be done in the manner provided in the subsequent sections and the manner is provided in Sec.112 of the Code. That section requires a Magistrate to make an order in writing setting forth the substance of information received. " 9. In the case of Hasibuddin and 32 others V/s. The State of Bihar reported in 1971 PLJR 193, a Division Bench of this court considering the same question; had held as under : "there have been a number decisions concerning this aspect of the matter, and I may refer to one of the earliest decision on this point given by Falz ali, J. (as he then was) in (1) Amnot Ali V/s. Emperor, AIR 1929 Patna 67. I may quote the following few line from his Lordships judgment: "besides in the proceeding under section 107, that has been drawn up in this case, he has only re-produced the language of Sec.107, Criminal Procedure Code, without specifying in what way and with reference to what manner the petitioner was likely to commit a breach of the peace and in what way he was likely to do a wrongful act which might occasions a breach of the peace. It is not difficult to see that a vague proceeding like this cannot be supported. " 10. In the case of State of Punjab V/s. Rattan Chand, reported in 1984 criminal Law Journal NOC 153, a bench of this Court reiterated the same view and held that if the notice to show cause does not specify the overact nor particulars of house regarding which alleged apprehension of breach of peace was likely to arise then such notice and the proceeding under Sec.107 of the code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be quashed. 11. In the instant case, it appears from the order that the learned magistrate has not stated the substance of the report of the police and in what manner the petitioners were likely to commit breach of peace. It is also not stated as to with regard to which house there was apprehension of breach of peace. All these things have been left vague. The notice issued to the petitioner, copy of which has been produced before me also shows that the notice is also totally vague and there is no mention in it. It is also not stated as to with regard to which house there was apprehension of breach of peace. All these things have been left vague. The notice issued to the petitioner, copy of which has been produced before me also shows that the notice is also totally vague and there is no mention in it. It is unfortunate that the requirement of Sec.107 of the code have become a dead letter and are not followed by the Magistrate, it should be borne in mind with the proceeding under Sec.107/116 of the code some time cause irreparable loss and unnecessary harassment to the public who run to the Court at the cost of their own vocation of life. Unless it is absolutely necessary proceeding under section 107/116 of the Code should not be resorted to. It has been seen that proceeding under Chapter VIII of the code of Criminal Procedure particularly, proceeding under Sec.107 of the code of Criminal Procedure are conducted by the Magistrate in a most lethargic manner causing harassment to the public for no fault. The Magistrate, therefore, exercising power under Sec.107/116 of the Code of Criminal procedure must apply their minds and must record the substance of accusation and the substance of information in its order-Initiating proceeding under the aforesaid sections. 12. As noticed above, in the impugned order learned Magistrate has filed to apply its mind and passed the order in a mechanical way which is vitiated in law. 13. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order initiating proceeding under Sec.107 of the code of Criminal Procedure is hereby quashed. Application Allowed.